Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

SELECTION

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th November], That Mr. Hugh Delargy, Mr. Harold Finch, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. Clifford Kenyon, Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Mr. Francis Pym, Mr. Harry Randall, Mr. George Rogers, Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. John M. Temple and Mr. Wilkins be Members of the Committee of Selection.

Question again proposed:—

Debate resumed;—

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Directory Entries (Pro Forma Selling)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the system of pro forma selling by which certain firms send out invoices offering discounts for entries in forthcoming directories, such entries never having been ordered; if he is satisfied that the public is sufficiently protected from such practices; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I am aware of the regrettable practice to which my hon. Friend refers, but I think it is for the recipients to protect themselves by checking before

payment that they have not contracted for any such directory entries.

Mr. Davidson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this practice is nothing more than a squalid confidence trick? Does she not agree also that there is something wrong when apparently a firm can imply that an order has been placed when it has not been placed, when it can raise thousands of £s by this implication, and when it can also imply that a directory is to be published when it is not? Does not she think that the law needs to be strengthened?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend that it is very reprehensible to send out pro forma invoices that look so like genuine bills that people are sometimes misled. I hope that any firm that receives any form like this will take the opportunity to complain and that people will not be taken in by this practice, which seems to me, although it is not illegal, to be thoroughly wrong.

Cotton Textile Industry

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the cotton textile industry, and in particular the economic and trade prospects for the industry in Lancashire in the coming year.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): Production of yarn and cloth has risen by 7½ per cent. and 5½ per cent., respectively, compared with the third quarter of last year. Order books have also lengthened considerably, to an average of 23 weeks production in the case of spinners and 17 weeks in the case of weavers. While it is dangerous to prophesy in a trade which is subject to cyclical fluctuation, nevertheless, given the state of order books and the improved competitiveness of the industry as a result of devaluation, the outlook looks encouraging.

Mr. Davidson: My right hon. Friend's words are very encouraging, particularly in view of the gloomy forecasts which were made in many quarters, but does he not agree that he could give further encouragement to Lancashire by considering the import quotas again?

Mr. Crosland: I certainly think that the general position is a great deal more


encouraging than it was this time last year, for example, when many very gloomy forecasts were being made. As to any further Government action or further Government policy decisions, I have said again and again, and I must stick to this, that I do not propose to take any new policy decisions affecting the industry until I have had the result of the productivity study, which I still hope to have by the end of the year.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When will the Textile Council report on its productivity study, because the absence of this report has been a reason for postponing decisions for a long time? Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that time is beginning to run out in the matter of quota arrangements for imports? When does he propose to start renegotiating these quotas, because he will be up against the buffers of time quite soon?

Mr. Crosland: I am well aware of the timetable as regards quotas. We have not run out of time yet, but it is right that we should watch the timetable very carefully. I shall not take any decision on that until the Textile Council Productivity Study has been completed; and that, I hope, will be by the end of the year.

Mr. Blackburn: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we have been holding up decisions for a long time because we have been waiting for these reports? Can he give us an indication of when we shall get both the Hunt Report and the Textile Council's Report, and then perhaps some decision will be taken?

Mr. Crosland: I hope to have the Textile Council's Report by the end of the year. I believe that we are expecting the Hunt Report in the very early part of next year.

Mr. Mapp: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that mergers are inevitable in face of whatever kind of report he gets? In these circumstances, will he encourage the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to look into some of the possibilities: in Lancashire, without the aid of its Chairman, for reasons which both sides of the House will know, namely, that he has a major interest in the textile industry? That should not

neutralise the efforts of the I.R.C. to look into the possibilities there are.

Mr. Crosland: The Chairman of the I.R.C. has made a considerable contribution to mergers in the textile industry, as my hon. Friend knows. On the more general question of the I.R.C., I agree with my hon. Friend that we certainly have not seen the last of mergers in this industry. We shall see more of them, but I would not like to call in the aid of the I.R.C. until I see what the productivity study says, although it is one of of a number of possible courses of action after we have that study.

Railways (Private Operators)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what grants and allowances for plant, machinery and equipment he will make available to the private enterprise operator of a railway line used for the transport of passengers and freight following its abandonment by British Railways within a development district.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No financial assistance would be available from the Board of Trade under either the Industrial Development Act or the Local Employment Acts.

Earl of Dalkeith: I understand the difficulty of giving a better Answer to my Question, but will the hon. Lady say whether her Department has made an assessment of the value of the Waverley line to the future development of trade and industry in the Borders of Scotland, and, if so, what advice it has given to the Minister of Transport?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Board of Trade has an active interest in the development of industry in the Borders. Obviously, we take into account the effect which factors such as railway closures would have. There has been a decline in the usage of the line, although I do not underestimate the difficulties, sometimes psychological, which people feel they will face if railway lines close. However, we believe that what will give real help to industrialists in this area will be alternative forms of transport and, in many instances, improvement of roads.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and Answers are becoming longer.

Imports and Exports

Mr. Jopling: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent it is his policy to give preference to industries which contribute to exports rather than those which make a similar contribution to import saving.

Mr. Crosland: The Government's policy is to encourage and assist all industries to make the best contribution they can both in export markets and in competition with imports at home.

Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 12th June one of his senior officials came to the Select Committee on Agriculture and, in reply to Question No. 918, said specifically that his Department's policy was to give preference to industries involved in exporting rather than those involved in import saving? Is that not an extraordinary statement of policy?

Mr. Crosland: I confess that I was not aware of the answer to Question No. 918 on that occasion. However, whatever he said, my view is that in the short run we should give encouragement to both export promotion and import saving. But I agree with whoever gave the answer to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that, taking the longer view, export promotion is the more valuable, partly because the world market is larger than the domestic market, partly because world trade in manufactures is growing faster than the British national income is growing, and partly because the exporting industries are typically industries with a considerable reserve of productivity increase whose expansion can significantly affect the rate of growth.

Mr. Maxwell: As balance of payments considerations are of highest importance at least for the next three years, does not my right hon. Friend agree that import savings could make an immediate and much faster contribution than exports since we have to give such long credit terms?

Mr. Crosland: I said that, in the immediate outlook, we ought to support both equally. As regards import saving, the Government have been extremely active, for example, in relation to the aluminium smelters, the agricultural expansion programme, the encourage-
ment. of North Sea gas production and in many other ways.

Mr. Jopling: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the estimated deficit in the United Kingdom overseas trade during 12 months ended 31st October, 1968; what proposals he now has to make for improving the terms of trade by increasing exports and by diminishing imports by home production to substitute for imports, respectively; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: Figures of the United Kingdom's trade up to 31st October are not yet available. The Government are pursuing, and will continue to pursue, a wide range of measures designed to improve the trade balance.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while endorsing the view that exports have performed creditably since devaluation, express renewed anxiety about the level of imports; and is not this largely due to the total failure of the Government's policy of import substitution in the context of British agriculture?

Mr. Crosland: I listened with pleasure to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday. I profoundly regret that I missed the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I heard the moving tribute paid to it by the Leader of the House, and I am sure that it was very good. On the point of substance about imports, as we have made clear again and again imports are running at a higher level than we should like. There are a variety of reasons for this. As regards the point which the hon. Gentleman made about the agricultural expansion programme, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to make a statement to the House on the subject in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have many Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: How does the President of the Board of Trade reconcile


the bullish tone of the Chancellor yesterday with his own much more cautious assessment when he spoke to the International Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. Crosland: No doubt there are differences of temperament here, as there are, I imagine, everywhere else. On the substance of the matter, as I recollect my right hon. Friend's speech and my own speech, we were in complete harmony.

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give the percentage increase in the volume of imports and exports, respectively, between the third quarter of 1968 and the average for the second and third quarters of last year before devaluation;
(2) if he will give the percentage increase in the value of imports and exports, respectively, between the third quarter of 1968 and the average for the second and third quarters of last year before devalution.

Mr. Crosland: On a seasonally adjusted basis, the volume of United Kingdom imports increased by 11 per cent. and of exports by 14 per cent.; the increases in value were 26 and 25 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Blaker: Is not the significant fact revealed by those figures that the value of imports has risen in the periods concerned even faster than the value of exports, and does not that give rise to concern?

Mr. Crosland: It was always clear that devaluation would have the effect—and this was the intention—of raising import prices by more than export prices, and so there was bound to be the trend to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. But what is important as regards the outlook now is not the figures for the whole nine months of this year but the trend of the trade balance, and all those hon. Members who have been following that trend will have noted a very marked improvement in the past two months.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the imports of foreign steel into South Wales and to the fact that those imports doubled in the period up to 20th October this year as compared with the corresponding period last year? Will he give an undertaking to watch that unfavourable trend very closely?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend draws attention to a fact of which he is well aware, that there is a surplus of steel at present, which leads to great balance of payment problems not only for this country but for others. I shall continue to give very close attention to the point my hon. Friend mentioned.

Sir K. Joseph: Since imports have risen in both value and volume either at just about the same rate as exports, or a bit more, since devaluation, what reason has the right hon. Gentleman for thinking that exports can pull ahead in the future without pulling up imports after them?

Mr. Crosland: Just to make sure that we are in agreement about the facts, exports have increased significantly faster than imports by volume—14 per cent. as compared with 11 per cent. On value, they are almost identical—26 per cent. and 25 per cent.

Mr. Bessell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arange to publish with the import-export figures each month sufficient detail to enable industry to identify those markets where imports are rising.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): Extensive information is published in the Overseas Trade Accounts and more detailed monthly statistics are available to industry from the Bill of Entry Section of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister aware that these figures arrive much later, and do not enable British manufacturers to identify the imports quickly enough, and that it is important that these figures should be available at the earliest opportunity to prevent panic reactions to the Board of Trade figures?

Mr. Dell: It is important that people should have these figures, but figures are available to manufacturers—both exporters and import-savers—in very large quantity from a number of sources, such as the Overseas Trade Accounts, which give commodities by main countries, H.M. Customs and Excise Bill of Entry Service, and the facilities available under Section 3 of the 1967 Finance Act. There is a limit to what one can usefully and economically provide, but we are providing a very good service in this respect.

News of the World (Take-over Bid)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in the News of the World take-over bid.

Mr. Barnett: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to use his powers under the Monopolies and Mergers Act in connection with the takeover bid for the News of the World; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: On the information at present available, I have decided not to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Sheldon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Take-over Panel has been completely discredited by the events of the past few days? Can he say why the panel allowed Hambros to purchase shares at 50s. when previously Hambros had thought that 28s. was the maximum price it could pay? Since my right hon. Friend has responsibility for the High Street market, why cannot he take responsibility for the stock market also?

Mr. Crosland: I do regard myself as being responsible in the last resort for protecting the interests of shareholders, particularly the growing number of small shareholders who do not have merchant banks or others to advise them. I accept that this must ultimately be my responsibility. My hon. Friend is right to say that recent events have given rise to acute anxiety and disquiet. I have discussed them with the Governor of the Bank of England. At present the City authorities and the Board of Trade are jointly considering the future of the panel and the take-over code, and any penalities under the code. Until those discussions are complete, I should not like to make any more definite statement.

Mr. Barnett: Will my right hon. Friend at least take the opportunity of ensuring that the small shareholder has a fair opportunity to decide between the two relevant bids? Will he tell the House what representations he has received from the Opposition, who are extremely interested, as we all are, in ensuring maximum savings, which need the good will of shareholders investing in equities?

Mr. Crosland: I am not conscious of having received any representations from the Opposition on this matter. I do not propose to intervene in the situation which my hon. Friend has in mind. On the more general question, if a voluntary system can be made to work it has obvious advantages for everyone, but if a voluntary system, even if reformed in the way that a number of people would like to see it reformed, fails to work again the Government must accept their responsibility, as I would. I would not hesitate then to take statutory powers.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Why is the right hon. Gentleman shelving his responsibilities? Surely the events of recent months have shown that he should have taken action, rather than look at the matter now when it is closed?

Mr. Crosland: I am interested that it is the Opposition who are pressing to take legislative action in the matter, and I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's attitude. Since the Government and the City are now working on a new code, and possibly a revised panel, it is right to await the outcome of those discussions before deciding whether Government action is necessary.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. May I have your protection, Mr. Speaker. I asked a supplementary question, and the right hon. Gentleman deliberately misconstrued what I said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. How a Minister answers questions is not a matter for the Chair.

Man-Made Fibres

Sir K. Joseph: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce his decision on the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibres.

Mr. Dell: We expect to have the result of the tariff review by the end of the year; my right hon. Friend will then be able to take a decision on the Commission's recommendations.

Sir K. Joseph: But the President of the Board of Trade himself said in July that he hoped to have the result of the tariff review in two months. Are we now to understand that it is to take six months in all?

Mr. Dell: I am afraid that the tariff review is taking longer than was previously expected, because it was decided that it was desirable to seek further views both from certain other producers like Lansil and other selected consumers as to the effect of a tariff reduction.

Sir K. Joseph: Have the Government decided still not to act on the individual recommendations but to wait and act on the Report as a whole?

Mr. Dell: We still wish to take a decision on the Report as a whole rather than a series of piecemeal decisions.

Mr. Mapp: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are firms in the spinning industry in Lancashire dependent on the one supplier for their raw material, which are engaged, and want to be further engaged, in the home and export trade in direct competition with that largely monopolistic supplier? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that expansion might be held back because of the situation shown to him in the report?

Mr. Dell: We shall take full account of the point of view which my hon. Friend has just expressed.

Argentine Meat

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the President of the Board of Trade what effects have the banning and the resumption of meat imports from Argentina had on British exports to that country.

Mr. Dell: I can give no precise estimate, but there is no doubt that some important contracts were lost. Since the restrictions on carcase meat were raised our export trade has made good progress.

Dr. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the past 18 months there has been steady, if slow, progress in our exports to Argentina, and that some of the exaggerated and gloomy forecasts when we had to ban meat coming to this country have not been proved true?

Mr. Dell: There was undoubtedly during the period of the ban a falling off in the rate of expansion we were looking for. The situation has improved subsequently, and I hope that it continues to improve and that our whole trade with Argentina gets into a better balance than it has recently been in.

Development Areas

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further measures he intends to take to provide employment in those development areas especially subject to seasonal unemployment.

Mr. Dell: I have no further measures in mind. But a wide range of assistance is already available.

Dr. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that last winter additional assistance went into the South-West development area at between two and three times the rate to any other areas, and that as unemployment is higher than it was last year, both absolutely and in comparison with those other areas, it is illogical and unfair that the South-West has been completely left out of the £10 million programme for winter works this winter?

Mr. Dell: The Government have had to take account of the high figures of unemployment in other development areas. Nevertheless, considerable assistance is available to the South-West, among which are the new measures for tourism of which my hon. Friend is aware.

Mr. Waddington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable concern that a great deal too much money, particularly in the way of Regional Employment Premium, is already being spent in the development areas and that the money does nothing whatsoever to bring new industry into the areas or reduce the level of unemployment?

Mr. Dell: I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the situation. In my judgment, the Regional Employment Premium assists both by encouraging new firms to come into the development areas and by making those which are already there more competitive and thus more capable of providing employment.

Overseas Investments

Mr. Higgins: asked the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts he has made of the direct investment in the overseas sterling area and the non-sterling area, respectively, in 1968; and whether they confirm a trend towards a lower


proportion of investment in the overseas sterling area.

Mr. Dell: I cannot give exact figures which are liable to fluctuate from year to year, but I expect the proportion in the Overseas Sterling Area to be about 50 per cent., as compared with about 60 per cent. prior to 1966.

Mr. Higgins: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are to appraise the trend correctly, we need a true estimate of the rate of return on overseas investment? Would he agree that the Reddaway basis, which takes no account of capital gains in overseas investment, is inadequate, and will he ensure that capital gains are taken into account in future estimates?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Professor Reddaway's final report is shortly to be published, and no doubt we shall all have an opportunity of discussing it then, particularly in the light of everything that both the hon. Gentleman and I said on this subject in 1965. I think that so far Professor Reddaway confirms my view of the subject rather than the hon. Gentleman's.

Mergers

Mr. Higgins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to define more precisely the rôle of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation vis-à-vis the Monopolies Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. It is already well understood that the rôle of the I.R.C. is to promote and facilitate the desirable re-structuring of industry, and that of the Monopolies Commission is to investigate mergers which are referred to it by the Board of Trade; these two functions are wholly compatible.

Mr. Higgins: Is not the crucial word "desirable"? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that at the moment the Monopolies Commission does not have the staff to enable it to look at mergers at short notice? Will he do something rapidly to remedy this and ensure that mergers recommended by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation are submitted to independent scrutiny?

Mr. Crosland: I should not think it would make sense to refer all mergers or all mergers recommended by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to the Monopolies Commission. I think it is better to have prior consultation, as now exists, between the I.R.C. and the Board of Trade. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I am considering how we can strengthen the Monopolies Commission. In my view, the stronger the merger movement is, the greater is the need for the Monopolies Commission to prevent abuse of market power.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend's example of strengthening, on the one hand, the Monopolies Commission and, on the other hand, looking at the problem was not carried out in relation to the G.E.C.—G.E.C.-General Electric merger? Was it not unfortunate that that merger was not referred to the Monopolies Commission, and was not my right hon. Friend's statement afterwards totally unsatisfactory in this case?

Mr. Crosland: I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not agree with the statement, which is a different thing from saying that it was totally unsatisfactory. The reasons why we did not refer that merger were explained clearly in my statement, and they are fairly generally known to the House. We decided that, on balance, it was a desirable merger and, therefore, did not want to hold it up for a number of months by referring it to the Monopolies Commission.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon Gentleman take the opportunity to deny newspaper stories that the Prices and Incomes Board will be allowed anything to do with these matters?

Mr. Crosland: I am not aware exactly what those newspaper stories are. I cannot spend the whole of my time reading newspaper stories. There are many better things in life to do than that. Therefore, I regret that I can neither confirm nor deny the reports that the right hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. George Brown: Would my right hon. Friend please reassure me that, since the I.R.C. was established to re-structure industry, he will not re-establish the Monopolies Commission to frustrate it?

Mr. Crosland: I should never dream of frustrating any child of my right hon. Friend. I can certainly give him the assurance: that all of us give the strongest possible support to the work of the I.R.C., a body which has been successfully carrying out, I think, the objectives that he had in mind when he set it up

Kennedy Round

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position regarding his proposals to accelerate the Kennedy Round tariff cuts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dell: Our proposals, which my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 14th March, remain on the table. Progress depends on the ability of the principal countries concerned to meet the conditions attached to the offer.—[Vol. 760, c. 1638–43.]

Mr. Lane: Would the Government consider taking a fresh initiative with the new American Administration as soon as it is established in order to try to get more progress in the direction that we all want?

Mr. Dell: The question will, of course, arise whether the offer should remain open after 1st January, 1969. At a time when the new Administration is coming into office, I see no reason why our offer should be withdrawn, though, of course, this is a matter on which we have to act together with other countries whose views will be important in this respect.

Investment Grants

Mr. Lane: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the continuation of the temporary increase in investment grants after the end of the current year; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. John Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to change the existing rates of investment grants.

Mr. Crosland: I have received a number of representations from the C.B.I, and other bodies asking that the temporary increase in the rates of investment grant should be continued beyond the end of 1968. I have, however, stated on a number of occasions, most recently

in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) on 23rd October, that the rates will revert to 40 per cent. and 20 per cent. on 1st January, 1969.—[Vol. 770, c. 292.]

Mr. Lane: While I agree with that decision, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the very healthy prospective increase in investment next year in the service and distributive trades, quite apart from manufacturing industry, and does not this cast some doubt on the value of investment grants as a stimulus to manufacturing investment?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remark. As to the prospects for 1969, which are encouraging generally in both sectors—manufacturing and service and distribution—I should not like to draw any conclusions from the surveys of investment intentions which the Board of Trade carries out because, while I think they are an invaluable general guide to the trend of investment, the particular figures cannot be relied upon as a totally accurate indication of what will occur.

Mr. Biffen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reflect a little more sympathetically on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and accept that investment grants are an area of public expenditure which could well be capable of very severe reduction as part of the strategy of tax reduction?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir; I would certainly not accept that. On the contrary, I think that investment grants were one of the major reasons why investment held up very much better in the last year or two in a period of relatively low demand than it has held up in any similar period since the end of the war.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that a substantial proportion of these investment grants are used for importing plant and machinery from abroad, and, bearing in mind the extent to which imports are bedevilling our balance of payments situation, is it not undesirable that the Government should subsidise them to this extent?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. It is not a question of subsidy. The fact is that


investment grants apply to all eligible machinery, whether bought at home or abroad. This must be true of any system of grants like this. We could not under any of our international obligations have a system of grants which differentiated between home production and imports.

Trade Figures (Publication)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cease the practice of publishing the trade figures every month.

Mr. Dell: No, Sir. The monthly figures provide essential information.

Mrs. Short: Would not my hon. Friend agree that some of the difficulties the pound has run into of late can be traced to this neurotic preoccupation with the monthly trade figures? Is it not the case that no other country publishes trade information in the form we make ours available to friend and foe alike? Does not my hon. Friend think we should publish the trade figures less frequently?

Mr. Dell: I think that we must publish the figures monthly. Our major trading competitors publish theirs monthly. I believe that people increasingly understand that one should not rely on a single month's figures for trade and that they will understand this even more when they observe the continuing favourable trend in our balance of payments.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would not the proposal put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) have the effect of stopping the Prime Minister talking of economic miracles?

Mr. Dell: It is perhaps disturbing to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who no doubt will find many opportunities for such remarks, that our trading position is greatly improving. I am sure that it is the wish of the House in general that it should continue to do so.

Africa

Mr. Judd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the present rate of British exports to, and investments in, South Africa, the Portuguese territories of Africa and the rest of the continent of Africa.

Mr. Crosland: Comparing the first nine months of this year with the same period last year, United Kingdom exports fell by 3 per cent. to South Africa, and rose by 34 per cent. to the Portuguese Territories and 9 per cent. to the rest of Africa. There has, however, been a marked increase in exports in recent months, and in the third quarter exports to South Africa were 11½ per cent. higher and to the rest of Africa 24 per cent. higher than in the same period last year. The latest figures for private direct investment relate to the year 1966 when, compared with 1965, investment fell by 22 per cent. in South Africa, 33 per cent. in the Portuguese Territories and 35 per cent. in the rest of Africa.

Mr. Judd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to lock closely at our economic relations with Africa, thinking, first, in terms of principle and of our rejection of economic and racialist exploitation and, secondly, in terms of enlightened economic self-interest, and that we should therefore take opportunities in the main part of Africa which at present are being seized by so many of our industrial competitors?

Mr. Crosland: The figures I quoted of exports to the rest of Africa will, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend that a considerable effort is going into increasing them. We must bear in mind what he said in the earlier part of his supplementary question, but if I took the view that we should not trade with any country of whose Government I politically disapproved we should have very few trading partners in the world.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the figures are so much out of date? Was it not one of the Budget measures to encourage investment in under-developed countries and discourage it in developed countries? If we are always two years behind in cur figures, is it not difficult to measure the success or failure of such Budget undertakings?

Mr. Crosland: These figures come from another Department and I should like to look into the point put by the hon. Gentleman and write to him.

Balance of Payments (American Aircraft Imports)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in future, he will include in the monthly import figures the purchase of American military aircraft or missiles, so as to give a more accurate picture of the real balance of payments.

Mr. Dell: The import figures published monthly are shown both including and excluding arrivals of American military aircraft and associated equipment.

Mr. Digby: Does not this practice of excluding them look too much like an exercise by the Government in wishful thinking with regard to imports? If the real test is to be date of payment and not delivery, should not the same principle, in fairness, be applied to exports, which would make these figures look rather different?

Mr. Dell: The figures are shown in those published including American military equipment. They are treated separately because these imports are large, special and completely documented items. The reason for their exclusion from the visible trade balance figures is the effect they would have on the presentation of the balance of payments figures because, in this respect—and this is the main problem of the balance of payments as against the balance of trade—there are compensating credit entries.

Mr. Corfield: But the same could apply to a large number of other items which are not pieces of defence equipment. This differentiation makes nonsense of the figures. For example, what about the proposed purchase by B.O.A.C, with dollars, of American aircraft? Surely this is exactly the same principle but it is treated differently.

Mr. Dell: The problem is not as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests because all the figures are presented. If the hon. Gentleman wanted, for example, to look at payments and drawings, he would find them in the quarterly estimates given in "Economic Trends". All the information is available and to segregate it in this way actually increases the amount of information available to those who study

both our balance of payments and our balance of trade.

Advance Factories (Scotland)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories in Scotland were unoccupied at the last convenient date; and what is the square footage.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance factories in Scotland are completed but empty; how many are under construction; and how many of these have not yet been assigned to prospective tenants.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: At 31st October, 1968, 15 advance factories in Scotland, with a total area of approximately 335,000 square feet, were complete but unoccupied. Applications for two of these are under consideration. A further three are under construction and two of these have already been allocated.

Mr. Dalyell: Is priority still being given to the construction of advance factories in areas where collieries are closing down?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Obviously, we have a rolling programme which concerns special development areas. It is certainly true that we give them special consideration.

Mr. Campbell: Does the hon. Lady agree that an empty factory helps no one? Is she satisfied with the present position in Scotland?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is very encouraging that 12 factories have been allocated during 1968, which is more than double the rate achieved in 1967. In the last four months, eight have been allocated. Although I am not pretending that I shall ever be satisfied while there is an empty advance factory, I am highly delighted that we seem to be letting them far faster than they have ever been let before.

Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend accept the compliments of this side of the House on her continued pursuit of this policy, bearing in mind that if these empty factories had not existed, the industries concerned would not have been there now?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall not be content until the development areas, which still have too high an unemployment rate, are providing employment at the rate which we think necessary, and the programme of advance factories is one very practical way of achieving that end.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What is the longest that one of the 15 factories now vacant has been vacant?

Mrs. Dunwoody: One factory has been standing empty since September, 1966. I do not pretend that I am happy about that, but I hope that we shall continue to let them as fast as we have let them in the last months.

Kingshill Colliery (Redundant Miners)

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that alternative employment is provided for the men who have become redundant as a result of the closure of Kingshill Colliery Number one.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The locality is in a Special Development Area and I hope that the additional assistance available to industry in these areas will encourage further development. The Harthill No. I advance factory has recently been allocated and the firm is now recruiting staff. Additional land is being bought, and as soon as this is acquired a start will be made on building a further advance factory.

Miss Herbison: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that when this colliery closed about a fortnight ago, 91 men became redundant and that only four of them have found alternative work, which means that in an area where there was already more than 5 per cent. unemployment 87 more are unemployed? Will she realise how important it is that a second advance factory is built? Will she pay no attention to the arguments of Scottish hon. Members opposite?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am well aware of the enormous amount of work which my right hon. Friend has done herself on behalf of her constituency and I assure her that we shall do everything we can to facilitate the rapid building of this advance factory.

South Africa

Mr. Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of British exports to South Africa for the year to date, and what percentage change this represents over the corresponding period in 1967 and 1966, respectively.

Mr. Crosland: £196 million to the end of September, which is 3 per cent. less than in the corresponding period of 1967 and 14 per cent. more than in the corresponding period of 1966.

Mr. Biffen: Does not the very magnitude of these figures indicate the rich and beneficial opportunities which there are for Britain in the southern half of Africa, and ought that not to be a major factor in the negotiations now being concluded with Mr. Ian Smith?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. The Rhodesian question is altogether a different question which is not for me to answer. The hon. Gentleman must know by now that I have made it clear that I support the highest possible level of civilian trade with South Africa.

Mr. Orme: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a comparable drain of sterling into South Africa in recent years which in itself has adversely affected our balance of payments?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I gave the figures for our direct private investment in South Africa in answer to a previous Question a few minutes ago. The facts do not seem to support my hon. Friend's conclusion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman complete those figures by giving the value of the exports which South Africa was prepared to buy from this country and which the Government refused to allow British exporters to supply, such as Nimrod aircraft?

Mr. Crosland: It was not simply a matter of the British Government refusing to allow these exports to South Africa. The British Government acted under the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution. However, to get the record straight I will say that, with one or two possible exceptions, all other


major industrial countries are adopting the same policy as we are.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that in no circumstances whatever will military weapons be sent to South Africa?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. I can reaffirm the Government's policy which has been made absolutely clear on more than one occasion.

Art Auctions (Ring)

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make changes whereby his Department will improve its liaison with the National Gallery with the object of enabling its purchases of works of art to be made at fair prices and at a reasonable profit to the seller.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade why his official inquiries into the allegations concerning the sale at Aldwick Court in March took from May until October.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he took to inform the National Gallery of the investigation he has been carrying out into the activities of Mr. Julius Weitzner and other dealers after the sale of the Duccio painting at Aldwick Court, Somerset.

Mr. Channon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the inquiry officials of his Department are carrying out into the recent purchase by the National Gallery of the Madonna and Child by Duccio.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has referred the matter of the Duccio sale to the Director of Public Prosecutions since it is impossible to bring a case under the Auction (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927, as the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, provides a six months' limit which expired on 26th September, 1968; and what explanation he has for failing to act in time, in view of the information he was given earlier in the year.

Mr. Crosland: With permission, I will answer these Questions after Question Time.

Waste Paper

Mr. Lubbock: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to increase the quantity of waste paper collected, in view of the contribution which can be made thereby towards the reduction of pulp imports.

Mr. Dell: The contribution which the re-use of waste paper can make is well recognised. The practical problem is to gear recovery to the demands of the mills, which are not constant. What is most needed is long-term contracts for the purchase of waste paper from local authorities, and co-operation between mills, local authorities and merchants in watching trends and forecasting demand.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety about the present situation in the waste paper industry and the possibility that one mill will have to import £50,000 of mixed waste because supplies are not available in this country? Will he at least reconsider the industry's demand that S.E.T. on it should be abolished?

Mr. Dell: S.E.T. is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to investment grants, which come within the remit of my Department, I must emphasise that the Industrial Development Act limits investment grants to manufacturing activities. The figures of the use of waste paper this year show a marked rise over the figures of last year. However, the important thing in order to avoid problems of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is the recommendations of the Paper and Board E.D.C., to which I have referred in the last sentence of my Answer related to the organisation of demand so that people have a guaranteed outlet for their collection.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: On a point of order. In this quarter of the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to hear what is being said. Will those behind the scenes turn up the apparatus?

Mr. Speaker: I am seized of the point of order. I shall have it looked into. I hope, however, that points of order will not be raised until the end of Question Time unless they are very important.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

Offshore Airports

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek powers to make a financial grant towards the development and construction of major off-shore airports near the East Coast to serve London and the East Midlands.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): Adequate powers are already available, should the need arise.

Mr. Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, in a thickly populated island like ours, the only sensible location for major airports must be on platforms offshore, and will he agree also that any consideration of other types of site by commissions or committees now sitting is a complete waste of time?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's second proposition. I agree, however, with his first, that there is an interesting prospect here in the establishment of major airports offshore. Chicago, for example, has in mind, I understand, a new airport in Lake Michigan. This is, however, principally a technological matter upon which I could not usefully comment further.

Mr. Corfield: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a fairly large number of passengers to whom proximity to a major centre of population is not of first importance and that, in the circumstances, a lot of the noise and inconvenience which is caused by flying could be saved by adopting his hon. Friend's suggestion?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes; a balance has to be struck, and that is a point to be borne in mind.

Sheffield Airport

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the construction of an airport at Todwick to serve Sheffield; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: The construction of an airport to serve Sheffield would in the first instance, be a matter for the

city council, and I understand that it has a project under consideration.

Mr. Osborn: Has a study been made of feeder line services in the United States? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that South Yorkshire needs international business, and Sheffield is the largest city without a major airport? Will he offer positive encouragement rather than passive reception of information coming from the city council?

Mr. Rodgers: I should certainly offer positive encouragement to those who see an essential need and seek to satisfy it. I know the hon. Gentleman's long interest in the particular needs of Sheffield, and I hope that they will be pursued, bearing in mind the full nature of the problem and regional as well as local requirements.

Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that positive and careful consideration is being given to the construction of a major airport in the Yorkshire-Humber-side areas?

Hon. Members: Nothing to do with it.

Mr. Rodgers: There seems to be a difference of opinion about what is needed, which emphasises the need for very careful consideration. We shall bear in mind and take the closest interest in all proposals made to us.

Mr. Corfield: Is not one of the major obstacles to a really successful regional development policy the lack of international air services to and from many of our provincial centres?

Mr. Rodgers: That goes rather wider than the Question. We have to keep a sense of proportion here. We want the full development of domestic and international services, but we must make sure that our investment in civil aviation and airports is acceptable in terms of total national priorities.

Civil Aviation Act 1968 (Consultation Procedure)

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to apply the airport consultation procedure provided under the Civil Aviation Act, 1968.

Mr. William Rodgers: We have started consultations with associations representative of aerodrome owners and, in the


light of these, intend to designate aerodromes where there is evidence of public need and demand. A few requests for designation have already been received.

Mr. Onslow: Should not the procedure be advertised, since aerodrome owners are less likely than the public to want to see it introduced? Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to see that the Act is made use of?

Mr. Rodgers: I will see that the provisions of the Act are known as widely as possible. I shall also bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman himself said during our debates on the Bill—that these provisions should be operated in a reasonable and sensible way.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not the profitability of British civil airline operators be increased if they were more adventurous in opening up new routes in Britain?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that that would necessarily follow.

Civil Airline Operations

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to restore the profitability of British civil airline operations.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am aware of certain current problems but the recession in airline operations is not confined to British operators. We must await the report of the Edwards Committee to guide us on the longer term.

Mr. Onslow: That is a complacent reply. The current problems can be described as conditions of extreme difficulty in an industry which is a major foreign exchange earner. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we therefore cannot afford to wait for the Edwards Report?

Mr. Rodgers: There are problems. As long as the present system exists, it would be wrong to change it before the Edwards Report is made. It is up to the operators to make applications to the Air Transport Licensing Board and for the Board to decide on those applications. There is a danger of airline operators suffering a loss in traffic which would not be offset by the increase in rates.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the importance of the issue, when may we expect the Edwards Report?

Mr. Rodgers: By Easter, 1969, I hope.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman treat this with great urgency? Not only the independent but the nationalised airlines are operating under extreme difficulties. Unless some action is taken to alleviate their financial problems, British airlines will be in serious trouble within months.

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the difficulties, and it is proper that we should discuss them in this way today. But we must bear in mind that any major change which may be required should be made with all the facts before us. Reluctant as I am to have to await the Edwards Report, it would be nonsensical to make a decision before receiving it.

Commercial Air Flights

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will define the official terms "short haul" and "medium haul" in so far as commercial air flights are concerned.

Mr. William Rodgers: There is no official definition of the terms "short haul" and "medium haul" but the former generally means a flight of under 1,000 miles and the latter a flight of 1,000 to 2,000 miles.

Mr. Rankin: As there is no official definition of these terms and as they are never applied to ships of the sea, why should they be applied to ships of the air, particularly in view of the enormous development which aircraft engines have undergone in the last few years?

Mr. Rodgers: There is no international definition, but it is useful to have a "shorthand" method of defining aircraft of this type and it serves a purpose.

Airports (Classification)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the use and application of the terms "municipal" and "international" in so far as the official classification of airports is concerned.

Mr. William Rodgers: We do not classify United Kingdom airports in this way. The International Civil Aviation


Organisation classifies certain aerodromes as international but the term "municipal airport" is not used.

Mr. Rankin: I am very glad to hear that statement and I take it that Glasgow Airport will no longer in any circumstances whatever be referred to as a municipal airport.

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the future of Glasgow Airport will turn on something rather more significant than the way in which it is described and I know the active championship of Glasgow which my hon. Friend has pursued. Here again, however, "shorthand" is useful. I remind my hon. Friend of the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 22nd February when he endorsed the previous agreement between—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—are hon. Members opposite dissatisfied with this reply? I was saying that my right hon. Friend endorsed the previous agreement between the British Airports Authority and the Glasgow Corporation. This matter was also pursued at length the other night on the Adjournment and I hope that on reflection my hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite will be satisfied.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the continued interruptions of hon. Members opposite and the difficulty of hearing what my hon. Friend has just said, may I be assured that he said nothing just now to qualify his main Answer?

Mr. Speaker: I must leave that to the hon. Gentleman to determine for himself.
I point out that today we have had fewer Questions and Answers than usual and that for every hon. Member who puts down a Question which is not reached it is to him a very important Question which is not reached. The trouble today has been both long supplementary questions and long answers. Mrs. Kerr—point of order.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: I would not wish to detain the House. I thought that I had made my point of order, which was that I could not hear in this part of the House. I think that our friend has turned up the sound equipment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady made this point last night, also. I did not wish to appear discourteous just now,

but it helps if these points of order are raised after Question Time. We will look into the difficulty that the hon. Lady is complaining about. I am not sure that the acoustics of the place are perfect. At any rate, hon. Members can help by always speaking up.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Ships (Imports)

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a study of the consequences for the balance of payments of the import of ships from abroad as a result of investment grants and free depreciation.

Mr. Dell: The purpose of these incentives is to encourage investment in new ships by British owners. The British shipping industry makes a valuable contribution to the balance of payments.

Mr. Ridley: If the Japanese, for instance, charge a 15 per cent. tariff on new ships, why should we subsidise them to the extent of 25 per cent.? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this has already cost the taxpayers £66 million? Will he not at least set up an impartial inquiry into this drain on taxpayers' money across the exchanges for no apparent benefit?

Mr. Dell: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that under the Kennedy Round the tariff to which he has referred has been reduced and will be reduced further. As to an inquiry, we are, of course, aware of, and study, the consequences for the balance of payments of our various actions in this field. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that a British-owned ship, even if bought abroad, if given a reasonable rate of profitability, is likely to make a positive contribution to our balance of payments, which, reading the Question, seems to be what the hon. Gentleman is interested in.

Mr. Small: Will my hon. Friend consider having a review of subsidising shipping in this country in respect of ships that are built abroad, which is actively under consideration by many people who are interested in shipping matters?

Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend knows, we are in frequent negotiation with our


competitors abroad on the subject of subsidies for shipbuilding. We hope to eliminate subsidies for shipbuilding. We do not regard investment grants for shipping—which are involved in this case—as constituting a subsidy. We regard them as an incentive to the British shipping industry, which makes a valuable contribution to our balance of payments.

Merchant Shipping (Cape Route)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade what tonnage of British merchant shipping is now using the Cape route; and what was the figure in 1965.

Mr. William Rodgers: I regret that this information is not readily available.

Mr. Digby: But this is the kind of information which the Department should be able to provide. Is it not clear already that the Suez Canal is not likely to be as important again? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Government with regard to safeguarding the Cape route?

Mr. Rodgers: It is necessary to have a sense of proportion about the collection of information. I agree that the Cape route is important and it is likely to remain particularly so as long as the Suez Canal is closed.

ART AUCTIONS (RING)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question Nos. 31, 60, 61, 62 and 73.
On 29th May last the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) came to see me to tell me that in their view a "ring" was operating illegally at art auctions. The Board of Trade made inquiries, but found no support for the general allegations that had been made.
Following a further meeting with the two hon. Members, the Board made additional inquiries, in the course of which it wrote to the Society of London Art Dealers on 6th August. The Society replied that it might be prepared to give some information but could not do so before the end of September. When it did so, on 30th September, a specific

allegation was made, for the first time, about the sale at Aldwick Court. It did not substantiate the allegation by any evidence and did not name anyone who might provide evidence. No names of possible witnesses were mentioned until 24th October when Mr. Tomalin, of the Sunday Times, gave information to my officials. I then referred the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am now advised that, as the auction took place on 26th March, an offence against the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927 is out of time for prosecution and, moreover, was already out of time on 30th September, when a specific allegation was made to my Department.
I am further advised that it would not be possible to institute a prosecution for any other offence based solely on the circumstances of the Aldwick Court sale.
As regards the price paid by the National Gallery for the Duccio painting, this was determined by the price which an overseas buyer was prepared to pay for it. I regret that those with knowledge of the activities of the dealers at Aldwick Court did not come forward, either to the Board of Trade or to the police, much earlier, when action could have been taken.
I am, however, not content to leave the matter as it now stands and I am considering urgently by what means inquiries can best be pursued into this particular case and into the general question of the operation of auction rings.

Mr. Crouch: I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has told us that he is not content with the present situation. Is he aware of the concern felt in the House and throughout the country at the casualness of his Department in dealing with this whole matter, which is, after all, a commercial one? It was extraordinary casualness by his Department in not advising the National Gallery about the position of this painting, which was sold for £2,700 and was subsequently to be bought by the National Gallery for £140,000. We are much concerned at such casualness.

Mr. Crosland: As to the price paid by the National Gallery, I think that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the position. That price would have been unaffected by any warning given to the


National Gallery, because it was set by the price which the Cleveland Museum of Art was willing to pay for the picture. That simply does not come into the matter.
As to the question of casualness, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. No doubt there can be mutual criticism here. I am not certain that we have not got lessons to learn from this. I think that we have and I propose to learn them myself. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should have been more subtle, or more diligent, I can only say that we would have been greatly helped in our inquiries if we had not met a wall of silence, amounting almost to a conspiracy of silence, on the part of many people who, it now emerges, have for some months past known not only about the Aldwick Court case, but about the activities of this "ring" in particular.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: First of all, if no prosecution is possible, will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up, under his own powers, an independent inquiry, under a Queen's Counsel, to look into the whole circumstances of this particular matter? Secondly, may I point out to him that in blaming, in my view quite unjustly, certain people, whose names we drew to his attention, for not giving this evidence, they could have found themselves in the very difficult circumstances of a libel action if names were given and mentioned?

Mr. Crosland: This surely raises the acute problem of anyone making inquiries in this matter. What I was pointing out—and I am not trying to pretend that we have been blameless—was that our activities were certainly not eased by the fact that it proved so extraordinarily difficult to get anyone, however privately, to come forward and give us the information, which we now know many of them had.
As to the point about the inquiry—may I say, in passing, that I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) for the help which they have given us in opening this matter up—this is a possible form of inquiry. I would not like to commit myself, but it is one of the forms that I am now considering.

Mr. A. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend and myself gave him specific allegations at our meeting with him in May this year, and that as a result of the incompetence of his Department in not moving at an earlier date, the D.P.P. cannot now prosecute? Will he therefore take steps to consult with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to taking out a deportation order against Mr. Weitzner, who, quite clearly, has abused the hospitality of this country?

Mr. Crosland: The question of a deportation order against any citizen is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and in any event I would not be willing, in question and answer, to find someone guilty until he is proved so. We must leave that question open.
As to the matter of what information was given me, there clearly is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a conflict of memory here. He and his right hon. Friend were good enough to see me in May, and neither I nor my official who accompanied me can recall any mention being made at that meeting of either the Duccio painting or the Aldwick Court sale generally, nor does the note of the meeting carry any reference to these things.
I am quite prepared to say that this may be an error of memory on my part. I cannot, of course, guarantee that it was not mentioned. If it was mentioned, the matter simply escaped the attention of both the official and myself and was not in the record of the meeting. I must point out that when, in July, I wrote to the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend a letter which they found unsatisfactory, their reply was still in purely general terms and made no reference at all to the Duccio or the Aldwick Court auction.

Mr. Channon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is far too serious a matter to be left without a definite conclusion and that, in the interests of the trade and of people who have been mentioned outside and inside the House, it is absolutely essential that there should be a public inquiry so that we can know the facts and action can be taken in future to make sure that these distressing events do not recur?

Mr. Crosland: This is a matter of public concern. As I said, I do not want to leave it where it stands if only because unjustifiable aspersions are cast in consequence of this on the British art market as a whole, the great majority of whose dealers have standards of irreproachable integrity. I am very anxious that this matter should be cleared up. I repeat what I said in my original reply, that I am considering urgently by what means inquiries can best be pursued both into this case and into the more general problem of auction rings.

Mr. Strauss: Is not one of the basic problems that my right hon. Friend is now out of time in prosecuting because the action took place six months ago? Is not this obviously a ridiculous situation? Will he consider urgently an early amendment of the governing Act?

Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend has a very important point. In this extremely difficult world, where information is very hard to come by, it is not always possible to find out the facts of the case within six months. The time limit, or whatever the legal phrase is, and the penalties, are matters which rate looking into very urgently.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that, if there has been any fraud, and it has occasioned loss, it was loss to the trustees of the estate, and that they have their civil remedy in the civil courts if they wish to avail themselves of it?

Mr. Crosland: I hesitate very much to make any remarks about legal matters, not being a lawyer and knowing nothing about the law. However, as I understand, the position is as stated by my hon. Friend—that it is a matter for the estate. I have seen, as I think the right hon. Member for Reigate and the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, have, a letter from the solicitors acting for the estate, suggesting that there is certain action which they can take. But this is so subtle a legal point that I shall not even read the bit of my brief concerning what they might do.

Mr. Whitaker: Is it not unsatisfactory that, once again, a newspaper, and particularly the Sunday Times, has investigated and exposed frauds which apparently the police and my right hon. Friend's Department were unaware of?

Therefore, as the last prosecution under the Section was brought 40 years ago, will my right hon. Friend strengthen his investigation department and/or amend the Act and increase the maximum penalty?

Mr. Crosland: I have already given an answer concerning the question of penalties and amendment of the Act. That is something that we must look into.
On the other point, it is not just a question of our investigation department not being strong enough. This is a world from which it is extremely hard, for reasons which one can understand, to elicit any definite information about this kind of malpractice.
As I have said, perhaps we should have been more diligent or subtle, but when we started we came up against the wall of silence which I have described. We now know that a large number of people had the information which we all have now and did not choose to make it available to us, for whatever good reasons—fearing libel, or whatever it may be.

Mr. Lubbock: When the right hon. Gentleman came up against the wall of silence to which he refers, did he make a report to the police about the allegation made by hon. Members? If so, on what date did that occur?

Mr. Crosland: No. When they came to see me, the hon. Gentlemen did not have the information about the witnesses who would come forward which first appeared at the end of October and which was the crucial point at which it was posible to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The names of those possible witnesses did not come forward to me or to anybody else until 24th October, and until we had them the matter could not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the police.

Mr. Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has revealed that quite a lot of people knew exactly what was going on? Therefore, would he look into the position whereby people who knew what was going on have a duty? It is possible to pursue these people for conspiring to keep silence when they knew that a conspiracy existed. Would my right hon. Friend look at the matter from that angle?

Mr. Crosland: I do not think that we have evidence of conspiracy in the legal sense of the term, so that I would not make any comment on that matter. My remarks on this subject will, I think and hope, be noted in the art world. It would be of great help to my Department, which has limited powers in this matter, if we had more co-operation from that world when it comes to an alleged scandal such as this auction "ring".

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Arising out of the question on the law put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade could say what has happened to the conversations between the Home Office and the Board of Trade concerning a survey into the auction law promised in the House by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 23rd December, 1964, as appears from column 1259 of HANSARD for that date?

Mr. Crosland: This was before I came to the Board of Trade, but, naturally, I have made inquiries. As I understand the position, an inter-Departmental investigation was made which concluded that the basic trouble—and this is a strong point—is not the letter of the law but the difficulty of discovering evidence. Therefore, it was concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the case for altering the law was not sufficiently made out, particularly since, after the famous scandal of two years or so ago, we had understood that matters had somewhat improved. However, in the light of this situation, I propose to look at the whole argument again and may not necessarily agree with what was decided two years ago.

BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (WAGE SETTLEMENT)

Mr. R. Carr (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement regarding the decision to block the wage settlement recently agreed between the employers and trade unions in the building and civil engineering industries after it had already come into force.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): In answering this Question, I have to inform the

House with regret that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is indisposed.
On 14th October the building industry's Wage Negotiating Committee decided to recommend to the National Joint Council for the Building Industry an interim increase to take effect from 4th November. The National Joint Council was to consider the recommendation at a special meeting on 24th October. This development was notified to the Department of Employment and Productivity on 17th October, and at a meeting on 23rd October was discussed by officials with the two rides.
At this meeting it was pointed out that the industry's calculation of the interim increases as representing slightly over 3½ per cent. could not be accepted as it disregarded a cost of living increase paid in March, 1968. This represented an increase of per cent., thus bringing the total increase to just under 5 per cent., which is well above the 3½ per cent. ceiling.
No conditions were attached to the increase which was justified only by a reference to rising output in the industry. In these circumstances, the parties were asked to defer the proposed increase pending receipt of a report from the National Board for Prices and Incomes which had been examining pay and conditions in the industry.
The National Joint Council for the Building Industry ratified the recommendations of its Wage Negotiating Committee the following day and informed the Government of the action taken.
After careful consideration of all the circumstances, the Government decided to refer the settlement to the National Board for Prices and Incomes as the increases were above the ceiling and without acceptable incomes policy justification and as a report from the Board on pay and conditions in the building industry was expected before the end of November.
A similar settlement in the civil engineering industry was made on 22nd October, although a request had been made by the Department of Employment and Productivity to defer action pending the discussion with representatives of the building industry on the following day.

Mr. Carr: We understand and regret the reason for the absence of the First Secretary of State. We realise that Ministerial responsibility for this action rests with her and not with the right hon. Gentleman. May I put three points to him?
First, is he aware that employers and unions in this industry gave the Government a whole 12 months' notice of their need and desire to make a proper long-term settlement and that the only reason why they have had to come forward at this juncture with an interim settlement is the delay and dithering caused by the Government's action, notably waiting six of the 12 months' notice before putting the matter to the Prices and Incomes (Board? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence of a 5 per cent. rate of growth in output per man hour in the industry?
Thirdly, is he aware that in these circumstances and at this stage, after the agreement has come into operation, this action is calculated to cause industrial strife and disputes, is a slap in the face for responsible trade union/employers' leadership and is a disgrace to the Government?

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the action taken by the Government is in line with the policy already explained in the House, and which has received the consent of the House. It is, therefore, Government policy. There were discussions between both sides of the industry, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and they were informed as long ago as March that it was the Government's intention to refer the claim to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Prices and Incomes Board.
It is true that there was a delay in referring this matter until May, but there can be no doubt that they were aware of the intention of the Government on this matter. Indeed, there were long discussions in which I was very much involved.
The policy of the Government is quite clear. In our view, it would have been an abrogation of Government policy had this interim award been made in spite of the fact that they only had to wait, as they were asked to do, until the end of November for the report from the

Prices and Incomes Board, upon which there could then have been a discussion and, perhaps, final settlement of the problem. What the Government have said is fair and proper. It is in accord with Government policy.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Government is unjust, stupid and a threat to industrial peace in the building and civil engineering industry? Is he also aware that building and civil engineering workers work in rotten, lousy conditions, that the so-called cost of living rise in March amounted to 1d. per hour and that these negotiations have taken 12 months? May I now ask the Minister to withdraw this reference immediately, before further damage is done to the industry and to the economy of the country?

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend's views about the Government's prices and incomes policy are well known in this House. He has every right to his point of view, and so have the Government to theirs. The fact is that they are implementing a policy which has been endorsed by the House. My hon. Friend cannot talk to me about his personal regard for those in the industry. No one has done more as a Minister than I have done to try to help them.
I must, however, make it clear that the industry was aware that the matter was before the Prices and Incomes Board and that it had to wait until the end of November for a report. In spite of that, the two sides decided, against advice, to implement the interim award. That in itself was a challenge to the Government. I hope that a great deal of good will is still left, because the final decision about any standstill will not be made until Monday. Discussions are going on with both sides of industry and I hope that good sense will prevail.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the position at least this much clear: that employees want more money, the employers are prepared to pay more money and the Government now intervene in this industry, of all industries? Is not one way for the industry itself to resolve this dilemma an increase in self-employment in the form of labour-only contracting? Was not this one of the consequences which faced the right hon. Gentleman when he considered Government action?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member has broadened the argument, and is talking about the Phelps-Brown Report, which has still to be discussed on the Floor of the House and on which we shall be glad to hear from him. Let us keep the argument as it is.
This is a case in which both sides of industry were negotiating a wage increase. Both sides of industry knew that the Prices and Incomes Board was considering the whole impact on the industry, and the original claim dated from last October. The hon. Member is perfectly right to complain about delay—I do not deny that—but the fact is that both sides of the industry knew that this matter was going before the Prices and Incomes Board. All that we are asking for at Government level is that they should wait for the P.I.B. report before coming to any decision.

Mr. Tomney: Would not my right hon. Friend realise that he is allowing events to run ahead of him and out of control? Here was a chance to achieve a long-term settlement with the building industry. In view of the adverse vote at the T.U.C. and at the Labour Party conference on the Government's incomes policy, and his own position as a former trade union negotiator, does not my right hon. Friend now think that it would have been better at this stage to have made a settlement?

Mr. Mellish: I am one of those who happen to believe in collective Government responsibility. I believe, also, that the Government's policy on prices and incomes is right and courageous.

Mr. Costain: I have a good deal of sympathy with the Minister in having to answer concerning this hot chestnut, but will he appreciate—as, I know, he does—the good relations between unions and employers in the building and civil engineering industry? Does he realise that what has happened will inhibit those good relations? Will he make it quite clear that the employers feel that they have a moral obligation to pay this money? What action will the Government take against those who have decided to pay it without the Government imposing a freeze? Will the Minister make the position clear?

Mr. Mellish: The hon Member should know the Act as well as I do. If the

Government introduce a standstill, there are dangers associated with such an implementation by any individual employer. In my view, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers are very responsible people and I am sure that they will see that the Government's wishes are observed. I hope that this action does not in any way damage the relationship between the unions and employers. I agree with the hon. Member that they are first-rate and I hope that they remain so.

Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the public interest, too, should be protected and that since there has been an extraordinary, steep and rapid rise in the cost of building, something might be done to put a ceiling or a stop to this rise in the cost of building?

Mr. Mellish: The Prices and Incomes Board is looking at the whole question of the building and civil engineering industry. Its report is expected at the end of this month, in a matter of a few weeks. I hope very much that both sides of industry will see the common sense of themselves applying a voluntary standstill order on this interim increase. I assure my hon. Friends and others of my hon. Friends that a great deal of good will exists, but I hope very much that they will exercise this restraint.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that many substantial wage settlements have been concluded recently after threats of trouble or disruption? In view of this attitude to a responsible claim by an industry with a splendid record of productivity, does not the Minister appreciate that this kind of decision will help to persuade the unions that the only way to get more money is to cause trouble and disruption?

Mr. Mellish: That is one of the arguments. On the hon. Member's argument, whichever way it goes, the Government cannot win. When they try to do what is right in industry and make all industry conform, they are accused of interfering. If they did nothing at all, that would be the negation of government.

Mr. Orme: Following what my hon. Friend has just said, to the effect that the Government cannot win, does he not agree that the disaster and the odium


of the policy on which they have embarked will now fall upon the Government because of their direct interference in the oasis of free collective bargaining, and that the sooner we get back to that the better? The Government would be well advised, at this late hour, to drop the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board and, perhaps, prevent disaster in one of our major industries.

Mr. Mellish: I know that my hon. Friend will not agree with what I am about to say, but let me point out to him and to others of my hon. Friends who say that the collective bargaining principle is sacrosanct that we have had a collective bargaining principle in this country for many years and that there are hundreds of thousands of our people who are almost at the other end on the poverty line because they do not have the power to get a good economic wage.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that if there is a strike it will be entirely the fault of the Government? As, therefore, large numbers of people on both sides in the industry will lose large sums of money, including building employers and those commissioning buildings, will the Government be prepared to compensate people, since it will be they who have started the strike?

Mr. Mellish: I do not think that there will be a strike. I repeat that discussions are at present going on between both sides of the industry and my right hon. Friend's Department, and my own, until a final decision is made on Monday, 11th November. I hope very much that we can arrive at a settlement which will be helpful to the industry as a whole. I know that there is a great deal of good will. It is a question of harnessing it.

Mr. Barnett: How many of the very large number of small firms in the industry are now paying this increase and, indeed, paying rather more than the increase? Is not this another meaningless exercise which can only result in causing further agonies of industrial unrest for a very modest increase and a very marginal increase in the total increases in wage costs?

Mr. Mellish: I know a fair amount about the building and civil engineering

industry, but I do not know enough to answer these questions.

Mr. Carr: May I renew the appeal which has come to the Minister from both sides of the House to reconsider this action? May I ask him to do so on this ground above all others? Does he not agree that one of the chief needs in industry today, particularly, perhaps, in this industry, is to strengthen the hand of the responsible, constitutional union leadership, and that to take this action, after an agreement has come into force, is the best thing he could do to discourage the responsible elements and to encourage the irresponsible?

Mr. Mellish: The leaders of the N.F.B.T.E. and the N.F.B.T.O. are known to me personally. I think that the relationship between them and the Government has been extremely cordial, but I can only say to them, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, that I find it rather sad, since they knew that the P.I.B. report was coming at the end of November—I know about the story of delays—that this interim award was made, with all the difficulties about which they were told in October.
I would just say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that I hope very much that, between now and 11th November, the discussions which are now taking place will result in the sort of agreement to which we are all looking forward.

RONAN POINT FLATS (REPORT)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The House will recollect that on 17th May I appointed Mr. Hugh Griffiths, Q.C., Professor Sir Alfred Pugsley and Professor Sir Owen Saunders, to hold a public inquiry into the collapse on 16th May of part of a block of flats, known as Ronan Point, in the London Borough of Newham. I have today published their Report, and copies are available in the Vote Office.
I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Griffiths and his colleagues for the careful investigation they have made and for the clear way in which they have set out their findings and recommendations. Her Majesty's Government fully accept the


findings as to the causes of the accident, and are in broad agreement with the recommendations for action.
Ronan Point is a 22-storey block of flats, built of large prefabricated concrete panels to form load-bearing walls and floors. The Report establishes that the immediate cause of the accident was an explosion following a gas leak in an 18th floor flat. The explosion blew out panels forming part of the load-bearing flank wall. This led to the failure of other structural components which in turn caused the whole south-east corner of the block above and below the seat of the explosion to collapse. The Tribunal describes this type of cumulative failure as "progressive collapse".
The Tribunal finds that this behaviour of the building was inherent in its design and was not due to faulty workmanship. It states that progressive collapse after such an accident can be avoided by the introduction of sufficient steel reinforcement to provide effective ties at the joints between the structural components, and by so arranging the components that loads can be carried in alternative ways if a failure occurs.
The Report also examines the possible effects of high winds on buildings of this kind. This is the subject of continuing study, the results of which are not fully reflected in the Report. We shall take account of the latest appraisals in considering this part of the Report.
The Tribunal recommends that existing blocks in large panel construction over six storeys in height should be structually appraised and where necessary strengthened. It recommends that the gas supply should be cut off in any blocks judged susceptible to progressive collapse until they have been strengthened. Provided the danger of progressive collapse is removed, there is no reason, in the Tribunal's view, to prohibit the use of gas in high buildings, and no reason why forms of construction using large pre-cast concrete panels should be discontinued.
It further recommends that the Building Regulations, and the codes of practice incorporated in them, should be revised to deal with these risks.
The House will recollect that, following the receipt of a letter from the chair-

man, we advised local authorities in August to cut off the gas supply from blocks where there appeared to be a risk of progressive collapse. This removed the principal risk of accidental explosion. After consultation with the building industry and the local authority associations we shall shortly give local authorities advice about the urgent appraisal and, where necessary, strengthening of existing blocks, and about the design of new blocks, to secure them against the risks to which the Report has drawn attention. In this work we have had and shall continue to have the valuable help of the National Building Agency.
We are putting in hand an urgent revision of the Building Regulations. The British Standards Institution has agreed to undertake urgently the examination and revision of codes of practice as recommended in the report. We intend to incorporate the results in the Building regulations as they become available. This work will be supported by expert advice from the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the Building Research Station, the National Physical Laboratory, and the Joint Fire Research Organisation, and by whatever further experimental work may be found necessary. The Government accept responsibility for ensuring that the regulations and codes of practice are kept up to date.
We are considering urgently a number of subsidiary recommendations.
Large panel construction of high blocks has been used in this country since 1958. But it is clear that the dangers to which this occurrence has drawn attention were not appreciated by the designers of these buildings, by those, including Government Departments—my own among them—responsible for laying down or advising on standards of construction, and by the many professional bodies consulted in the formulation of those standards. As however, the Report makes particular reference to the National Building Agency, I would like to say that the work the Agency has done on housing in recent years has followed an order of priority agreed with the Ministry.
Finally, in expressing the Government's resolve to put matters right swiftly, I hope that I may be excused for reminding right hon. and hon. Members, first, that the Tribunal has found nothing


wrong with construction systems using load-bearing panels that cannot be put right; and, secondly, that although certain restrictions may have to be applied or continued, they do not amount to a prohibition of the use of gas in blocks of this kind. We have done and we will do all that is humanly possible to avoid a repetition of this rare but tragic occurrence.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister aware that we shall want to study the Report very carefully and may later wish to debate it?
While joining in the thanks which he has made to those who took part in the inquiry, may I ask him: is it not now essential to allay anxiety which there may be among residents in tall blocks of flats, and to assure them that anything which needs to be done to strengthen any blocks of this kind of panel construction will be done as a matter of urgency?
Is it not a fact that high-rise flats have been built and used all over Europe for many years now with complete success? Will the Minister take this assurance from us, that in so far as the Building Regulations need to be amended in any way necessary, we will help in any way we can?

Mr. Greenwood: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, after we have had an opportunity of considering the Report it may well be useful to have a debate, if that can be arranged through the usual channels.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, because this is an extremely complex problem. I think that, if we were to get into technicalities today, there would be a genuine risk of doing injustice to some of the bodies and persons mentioned in the Report.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to allay anxiety. I hope that this statement in the House today, and also, I hope, the Press coverage later, will go some way towards doing this.
It has certainly been a matter of urgency. I received the Report from the Tribunal on 14th October and published it the first day it was possible to complete the printing. As soon as I got the Report, I set up a technical work-

ing party to consider criteria which should be applied in appraising these high blocks of flats, and today we are approaching the building industry and the local authority associations with these criteria. After discussion of them, we hope to issue them to all local authorities, within two or three weeks.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that this is a system of building which has been used with great success in other parts of the Continent of Europe. So far as I know, this disaster is unique with this kind of building.
I have very much in mind the importance of reviewing the Building Regulations, and we have already started work upon this, through the British Standards Institution's working party, on information provided by the Building Research Station. We hope, after consideration by (he Building Regulations Advisory Committee, that it will be possible in the fairly near future to issue a revised building regulation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in whose constituency this tragic event took place, may I ask that his name be associated with the thanks which have been expressed to all those concerned in the inquiry and to the local authority, which was most helpful. I, too, would like to join in that.
May I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the council concerned will not be expected to meet out of the local rates the costs involved in the strengthening of flats with steel joists? Will help be given?
May I also ask whether or not consideration has been given to compensation to the people concerned both for the tragic loss of life and for the loss of possessions? Will compensation also be given to those people who since the accident have had to convert from gas to electricity? If the Minister is not yet in a position to give a detailed reply, will he give favourable consideration to the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Greenwood: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has put his question. I am grateful to him, and I know that Mr. Griffiths and his colleagues will be grateful to him, for


the expression of thanks for the work that they have done in preparing the Report.
It is a little difficult, until we have had the appraisal of these high blocks of flats which is shortly to be started, to say what the cost will be. We had better wait until we know a little more about this before we consider the financial implications. My hon. Friend will remember that my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister of State said on a previous occasion, when considering the interim action taken in August, that it would be quite wrong for undue expense to fall upon individuals affected by this occurrence.

Mr. Costain: As my hon. Friend has said, until the Report has been studied in detail it is impossible to make comment. Does the Minister appreciate that people living in tall blocks of flats and councils who are considering building tall blocks of flats feel a great deal of apprehension? Is it possible for the Minister to issue a clearance order, since the matters are concerned with load-bearing panels and are very technical? This would reassure residents of high blocks built to different systems, possibly not affected by the Report.

Mr. Greenwood: This is a tragic occurrence by reason not only of the loss of life and suffering involved, but also of the anxiety which has been caused to people who feel, with however little justification, that they may be living in perilous conditions.
The question put by the hon. Gentleman is, I think, covered by what I have said about the technical criteria which we have already worked out. We are treating this as a matter of great urgency, and within the next two to three weeks, after we have had the necessary discussions with the industry and the local authority associations, we shall be in a position to define more accurately than we can now the buildings which need appraisal.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it true that the drawings remained in the National Building Agency offices for three years without appraisal? Is not the Agency paid £½ million a year precisely to avoid this kind of disaster? Why was the responsibility for vetting passed from the

Agency to the local authorities, who cannot be expected to cope with a technical job of this difficulty?

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot for the life of me understand how my hon. Friend got this idea that the drawings for these buildings remained for three years in the offices of the National Building Agency. The Agency, with the full support of the Ministry of Housing, concentrated in its work on industrialised building on appraising the large number of low-rise industrial systems which were constituting the major part of industrialised building in the local authority sphere.
This was something upon which local authorities needed urgent advice; whereas the larger systems, the more important and higher systems of building, which were involved on this occasion had been well tried on the Continent, and there was no reason to believe that they were not satisfactory. There was certainly no question of responsibility being passed by the Agency to the local authorities.
As is normal on these occasions, the local authority supplied to the Ministry a certificate that they were complying with the by-laws in operation at that time, but, in the light of experience, we now find that the requirements which then operated were not satisfactory. But this, of course, is the product of hindsight and not failure on the part of anybody concerned at the time.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the Minister say approximately how many blocks of flats in different parts of the country are affected by this sub-standard condition and will need attention?

Mr. Greenwood: It is not a question of "sub-standard". I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark. I do not say this reproachfully, but this is the kind of careless remark which can cause a good deal of anxiety. This was not sub-standard work; it was a failure in design. The Report shows quite clearly that there are jointing difficulties in some systems of industrialised high building, and that is what we have to establish.
When we took urgent interim action in August there were about 50 blocks of flats where there were prima facie grounds for supposing that there might be this weakness in the jointing. In the light


of what the Tribunal has said, we anticipate that we shall be appraising perhaps as many as 200 blocks of flats, in many of which no doubt the situation will be shown to be satisfactory.

Mr. Richard: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on this, since my borough is one which was inspected in July? May we take it that there are not likely to be a significantly greater number of blocks of flats which will now have to be altered than were contained in the interim information issued in July? If so, what are the different criteria which are now to apply?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend confirm that his reappraisal will be completed within approximately two to three weeks so that by the end of the month everyone in England ought to know where they are?

Mr. Greenwood: The situation has changed. When we took urgent action in August it was in respect of the dangers from gas, but it has now been shown by the Tribunal that there may well be dangers either from fire or windload in buildings of this kind. Therefore, we are casting our net more widely. I do not think that there is any likelihood of all the buildings having been appraised within the next two or three weeks, but within this period we shall be able to give to local authorities the technical guidance to enable them to do this work.
We hope that local authorities who are not themselves staffed to undertake important work of this kind will employ engineering consultants to give them the benefit of their experience.

Mr. Lubbock: Although the Minister is unable to commit himself precisely until he knows the total cost of these structural alterations, will he accept the principle that there should be direct assistance from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the local authorities affected?
Secondly, what arrangements will be made for the tenants who will have their gas cut off pending structural alterations, particularly where it is used for central heating?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him in the tempting line of discussion which he raised in the first part of his

question. As I have said, until we know more about it, it is difficult to talk usefully on the subject, but I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that there will be difficulties in respect of the point he raised in the second part of his question. Many local authorities dealt with this problem in August, and have dealt with it satisfactorily and with proper consideration for the people for whose care they are responsible.

Mrs. Renée Short: In the action that my right hon. Friend intends to take following this Report, will he bear in mind firmly that, not only must he maintain the confidence of occupiers of this type of building, but that of architects, engineers and construction firms? As, by all accounts, the Report is likely to be rather controversial in these circles, will he proceed with caution in the directions that he issues to local authorities and firms and, in addition, do everything that he can to make sure that we get an opportunity of debating the matter in this House before any irrevocable decisions are taken about it?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the use of Parliamentary time is beyond my control. However, I think that she has made a very valid point. This is a matter where, if possible, we must avoid recriminations. The Tribunal has been extremely fair. It has criticised individuals, the professions, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Accordingly, I hope that the professions and the building industry will take the criticism in the same good part as I hope that I take it on behalf of the Government.

GUYANA (PARLIAMENTARY GIFTS)

4.21 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: Mr. Speaker, there is an established and pleasant tradition of this House whereby we send a gift to the Legislature of a Commonwealth country following its attainment of independence within the Commonwealth.
On 16th July last, the House agreed to make a gift to the Parliament of Guyana comprising a Clerk's table, three Clerics' chairs and a chair for the Serjeant at Arms. Subsequently, the House gave


leave of absence to four hon. Members to go to Guyana and make the presentation on its behalf. Today, I have the pleasant duty of reporting to the House that the mission has been accomplished.
On Tuesday, 22nd October, there was a special sitting of the Parliament of Guyana, held in Georgetown, and the four hon. Members appointed for the task carried out their responsibility. The delegation was composed of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and myself, and we were accompanied by Mr. Kenneth Mackenzie, a Principal Clerk of this House and Clerk of Public Bills, to whom we are grateful for his assistance.
The Speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Rahman Gajraj, asked us to convey to you his good wishes on receipt of the letter of goodwill which you asked us to convey to him. The Assembly approved with acclamation a Resolution expressing its sincere thanks and good wishes and appreciation of the gesture of this House, and this is recorded in the Resolution which I shall hand you, Mr. Speaker, and which, in accordance with precedent, I trust you will order to be recorded in the Journal of this House.
I am sure that my colleagues would wish me to express our sincere appreciation of the very generous hospitality afforded to us by the Government of Guyana, whose guests we were, to the Speaker, the Clerk of the House, the Prime Minister, members of all parties and all concerned, who gave us not only generous hospitality but a great deal of their valuable time so that we could see the country, meet the people, and understand some of their problems.
We return much better informed of the problems and possibilities of Guyana,

convinced that, with the proper development of its latent resources, with better trading, investment, and other facilities, coupled with continuing stable government, the people of that country can be assured of a prosperous future.
My colleagues would also wish me to thank the House for the honour accorded to us on this occasion and for the opportunity of taking the good wishes and good will of this assembly to the people of Guyana.

Mr. Speaker: I am pleased, on behalf of the House of Commons, to thank the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and his colleagues for the satisfactory way in which they carried out the mission which we gave to them.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me a personal message from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and I will see that the Resolution which the hon. Gentleman is to bring to the Chair is entered in the Journal of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Bill to amend the law about the qualification of electors at elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom or at local government elections in Great Britain, and the qualification to and membership of local authorities in England and Wales, about the conduct of and manner of voting at those elections and about candidates' election expenses thereat, and otherwise to make provision about matters incidental to those elections, and for purposes connected therewith; presented by Mr. Callaghan; supported by Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. Ross, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Thomas, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Merlyn Rees; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SEA FISHERIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 8th July, Mr. Speaker, I announced to the House the outcome of the Government's review of future policy for the deep-sea fishing industry. I undertook then that legislation would be introduced early in the following Session to give effect to our proposals. I am now redeeming that promise at the earliest opportunity. I am very glad to commend the Bill as our first legislative business in the new Session.
The fishing industry is important to our economy. It is important for the contribution which it makes to our food supplies and for the imports which it saves; and it is very important in certain areas for the employment which it provides.
As the House will know, the industry has been going through a period of great difficulty. The hopes of the Fleck Committee which found expression in the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962 have not been wholly realised.
This has led us to review our policy. As a result, we are working towards a new and coherent strategy for the fishing industry. In doing this, we have made it clear that we shall not let the industry down.
The first element of our strategy is an assurance of continued support on a new basis. We are satisfied that the industry can make an increasing contribution to import saving, if it has the assurance of adequate support, and if it can show a continuing improvement in efficiency.
We have now given the deep-sea industry an assurance of support for a minimum period of five years. For the first three years—from August, 1968 to July, 1971—the total subsidy will be calculated according to the formula which I have already announced. This relates each year's subsidy to the actual profitability of the industry. For the fourth and fifth years, the method of sup-

port will be reviewed. But the objective will be the same. We shall seek to achieve a level of return to the industry corresponding to that of the first three years.
The second element of our strategy is to seek improved efficiency in the industry. We intend not only to give the industry the confidence which stems from assured support. We intend also to use the subsidy itself as an instrument for encouraging efficiency. At present, all vessels in a given length class receive the same basic daily rate of subsidy, irrespective of their efficiency. In future, the subsidies paid will be related to the efficiency of each individual vessel.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I would like to get one aspect of this clear, because it is very important. What the right hon. Gentleman is telling us is not in the Bill, but in the scheme which will be laid before us. Will he consider letting us have drafts of the scheme as soon as possible before the Bill becomes law? Without them, it will be difficult to follow the very complicated Measure about which he is talking?

Mr. Hughes: I shall be deploying this in rather more detail as I go on.
In the interests of efficiency, we also wish to see an expansion of the valuable work of the White Fish Authority, particularly in relation to research and development.
The third element of our strategy is that we wish to see an improvement in the structure of our industry. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is now actively engaged in discussions to this end. This is of great importance, but it would be premature for me to say more at this point. The Corporation has not yet completed its discussions or reached final conclusions.
I must also refer to the effect of imports upon the fishing industry. The House has been concerned about the pressure exerted on our market by the growth in imports of frozen fish fillets from E.F.T. A. countries. These imports have been exceeding the level of 24,000 tons a year, the maximum envisaged when the E.F.T.A. agreement was negotiated in 1959. We have had lengthy discussions of this problem with our Scandinavian partners in E.F.T.A. But I regret to say


that it is now clear that they cannot give us any assurance that this increase will not continue.
In these circumstances, the Government have decided to reimpose a 10 per cent. tariff on imports of frozen fish fillets from E.F.T.A. countries. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will put the necessary arrangements into operation as soon as possible.
I should like now to explain how the Bill will contribute to the achievement of this strategy. The new subsidy arrangements entail, in the first place, the repeal of certain provisions of the Sea Fish Industry Act of 1962. That Act provided for the automatic reduction each year of the basic rates of subsidy first fixed in 1962. The reduction will no longer be made. This is achieved by Clause I of the Bill. I am talking here of the deep sea section of the industry, not of the inshore fleet. It is right that I should stress this lest there be any misunderstanding in the debate on this account.
Hon. Members will notice that Clause I does not provide in terms for the new arrangements which will take the place of those that are repealed. It does not set out the formula for the calculation of the total subsidy sum or for its distribution on the basis of efficiency. These matters will be dealt with in the scheme which we shall lay before the House for approval by affirmative Resolution. I think that is the point on which the right hon. Gentleman wanted an assurance.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry if I interrupted the Minister too soon, but I think that he will recognise that that was not quite the point. They must come into the scheme, but my concern is that when we discuss the matter in more detail in Committee we should have the draft scheme before us, because it will affect the arguments adduced in Committee.

Mr. Hughes: I will try to tell the House a little more as I develop the subject. I appreciate the importance of having as much detail as possible at this stage. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall lay the scheme before the House as soon as possible after the Bill is passed. It will be difficult to lay the scheme before the House during the Committee stage,

but when the scheme is put before the House hon. Members will have an opportunity to discuss the detail at that stage. But I will, if I may, to assist the House, say a few words about the way in which we propose to distribute the subsidy so as to provide an incentive to efficiency.
The main factor we are thinking of taking into account is the "added value" attributable to each vessel. Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate what is meant by "added value" is to think of a balance sheet for each vessel separately. On the debit side of the balance sheet are such things as the cost of its fuel, the cost of repairs and maintenance, and dock and harbour dues. On the credit side are the returns which it gets from the sale of its catch. The difference between these two figures represents the sum which is shared between the crew and the owners as wages and profits.
This is what the economists mean by added value. It represents the net contribution which their combined efforts have made to the economy after meeting the costs of the goods and services which they have used in the process. Of course, there are questions about the weight to be given to particular factors and how the calculations are to be made. On these matters my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will give the fullest weight to the views of the industry. These are matters we are discussing with the industry and with the trade unions.
One final word before I turn from the subsidy. The total available for distribution has, of course, to be calculated on the operating profits of the deep sea fleet as a whole in a past period. We are anxious to begin payments on the new basis as soon as possible. We are proposing, therefore, to do the initial calculations for a half year. If the industry can supply the necessary figures for the six months ended 30th September, 1968, we should be able to make the first payment very early in the new year. The industry will, I think, regard this as very helpful. This is on the assumption that this Bill and the subsequent scheme have both been approved by that date.
The House will, therefore, appreciate the importance of getting the Bill through. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and to the Opposition for their


assurance that hon. Members opposite will assist in its speedy passage.
I have already spoken of the importance of research and development in improving the technical efficiency of the industry. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work already being done, particularly by the Industrial Development Unit of the White Fish Authority.
The House will readily agree that research and development work is vital if the industry's efficiency in catching and marketing its fish is to be increased. Here, the White Fish Authority has the important responsibility of carrying out commercial development work. The importance of this cannot be overstressed. The arrangements are the same as those which apply in many other industries for Government-assisted research. Half of expenditure on commercial development is financed from public funds, while the other half comes from the proceeds of a levy on industry. The White Fish Authority's general levy, from the proceeds of which this money for research has to come, is already at its statutory maximum.
The Authority has a wide range of other functions besides research and development. But it is especially in this field that we should all like to see its activities expanded. This the Authority can only do if its financial resources are adequate. This is the purpose of Clause 4.
This Clause will make it possible for any future levy regulations to work within a higher maximum. It will also broaden the basis on which the general levy is collected, if this should seem desirable. At present, there is a maximum of 1d. a stone. This was fixed in 1951 and is worth only about half of what that figure then represented. We are, therefore, revising it. At present, the rate is applied to all landings within the present definition of white fish, irrespective of type or utilisation. But it is not applied to any product outside that definition. We are, therefore, taking the opportunity to make these powers more flexible and to bring the levy arrangements of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board more closely into line.
I should emphasise that, once again, the House is dealing with an enabling power. No change can be made in either

the white fish or the herring levy unless subordinate legislation is subsequently approved. Any regulation by the White Fish Authority can take effect only if it is confirmed by Order of the Fisheries Ministers. Such an Order may be prayed against. There, again, the House can, if necessary, initiate a debate. Moreover, before the Order can be submitted for confirmation it has to be made available in draft to those affected. Their objections, if any, have to be transmitted to the Ministers for consideration when deciding whether or not to confirm the Order.
To summarise, Clauses I to 4 are the main financial provisions of the Bill. Before I leave them, I should briefly explain Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 is designed to ensure that we can make subsidy schemes which treat fish products in the same way as fish. We can also pay subsidy to a vessel if a catch is sold to a foreign buyer without actually being landed on the quay and reloaded. Clause 3 merely extends to fish subsidy schemes the kind of provisions we have all along had for agricultural subsidies. This, I think, will be appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House. With payments on the new basis, one man's subsidy will depend on the performance of the industry as a whole and of his competitors. It is essential, therefore, that we should have information which is both accurate and complete.
I now wish to deal with the Clauses concerned with conservation and policing. They are Clauses 5 to 14, and form the rest of the Bill. Their purpose is to provide the statutory framework needed to enable us to play our full part in international fisheries conventions to which we belong. This, too, will be welcome to our industry. It has long recognised the importance of international rules governing fishing operations, whether relating to conservation or to conduct on the fishing grounds.
The first purpose is to enable us to ratify and implement the policing convention—or, to give it its full title, the Convention on the Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic—which was presented to Parliament as a White Paper (Cmnd. 3645) last June. Hon. Members may recall that, to pave the way for the extension of our fishery limits to 12 miles in 1964, we had to denounce the North Sea Convention of 1882.
That Convention not only established a fisheries highway code among ourselves and five other countries fishing the North Sea, but also provided the basis for our former three-mile fishery limit. At the conference which led to the European Fisheries Convention of 1964 we were invited to call a further conference for the purpose of establishing an up-to-date set of rules. We did this, and as a result the new Convention was agreed. It has been signed by 18 countries which fish the whole of the North Atlantic. This marks an important step forward in international co-operative effort.
Like its predecessor, the new Convention's aim is to reduce the risk of damage to fishing vessels and gear—and of injury to fishermen—by establishing a code for the fishing grounds. I will say a few words about the rules. It lays down rules for such things as the identification and marking of fishing vessels and gear, special light signals for vessels engaged in fishing, and conduct on the fishing grounds. It also provides for an international system of enforcement. Under this, authorised officers of a member country may inspect the operations of, and, if necessary, board, vessels of another member country on the high seas to see if the provisions of the convention are being complied with. If they find any contraventions, they will report them to the vessel's flag State, which alone will be responsible for any court or other action.
These arrangements reflect closely the provisions of the old 1882 Convention, which were carried into our existing fisheries legislation by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883. There are, of course, modifications of detail in the new convention. But if hon. Members study these Clauses, they will see that they involve no new principles. Nevertheless, hon. Members will readily appreciate that its acceptance by all the main countries fishing the North Atlantic represents a real achievement. This country played the leading part in bringing the Convention into being. I am sure that the House will agree with me that it is important that we should be in a position to ratify it with as little delay as possible. The main purpose of Clauses 5 to 14 is to enable us to do this.
The House will have inferred from what I have said that many of these powers are already on the Statute Book in the 1883 Sea Fisheries Act. It was not surprising that when we looked into it we found that this Act which was drawn up in the age of sailing ships, was out of date in many of its details. It did not provide a satisfactory framework for today. We have decided, therefore, to repeal it. In the Bill we re-enact provisions which are still relevant, and we make suitable modifications.
Hon. Members will find, when we come to examine the 10 or so clauses in detail, that in almost every case they raise no new issues. They will prove, I believe, to be relatively straightforward. In brief, these Clauses empower Ministers to make orders applying to the United Kingdom internationally agreed rules on conduct. They prescribe the powers of British inspecting officers—sea-fishery officers—in relation to our own vessels and those of foreigners. They provide for authorised foreign officers to inspect our vessels outside our limits. They lay down penalties for contraventions.
This Part of the Bill will also enable us to participate in schemes for the international enforcement of conservation measures agreed by the international fisheries commissions. Again largely on a United Kingdom initiative, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission has recently recommended a joint enforcement scheme which will do for conservation what the policing Convention will do for conduct. The Commission for the North-West Atlantic is also considering the possibility of a similar scheme. The Bill allows us to play our part in such schemes. Our industry rightly recognises these as essential in order to curb the over-fishing of stocks which are of vital importance to the British fishing industry.
The Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, provides, with the Fishery Limits Act, 1964, the basis for enforcing our fishery limits regime. In repealing the 1883 Act, the Bill therefore restates the rules governing the operations of foreign fishing vessels within our limits, with suitable modifications to take account of a 12-mile fishery limit. We have taken the opportunity to strengthen provisions against poaching and to stipulate that foreign vessels must stow their fishing gear while in our limits


except where they are legally entitled to use the gear. In addition, by Clause 16, we are amending the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act, 1967. This will enable foreign fishing vessels within our limits to be put on the same footing as British vessels. Henceforth, it will be an offence for foreign vessels to carry undersized fish on board within our limits.
These measures represent an important step forward in international fisheries arrangements. They will help our industry and will, I believe, commend themselves to the House.
I emphasise the valuable part which the Bill can play in achieving our strategy for the fishing industry. It prepares the way for our continuing support to the industry. It will contribute to the continuing efficiency of the industry. It will enable us to give effect to an important international convention which is of vital importance to our fishermen. It will promote the conservation of fish stocks. In all these ways it is a move forward and I commend it to the House.
Our fishermen deserve well of us. It is right that we should give them a fair deal.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I wish to thank the Minister for introducing the Bill with his usual courtesy and for giving us a little more information than we normally get from the Government Front Bench.
This Bill arises out of the review of the industry started way back in 1964 and it implements the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave in this House on 8th July this year. I do not think there is any disagreement on either side of the House that during the four years since 1964 the state of the deep sea sections of the industry has considerably deteriorated. We all agree that something must be done and now the Government have decided to step up the subsidies from about £1·4 million to a maximum of £4 million. The Minister stressed that he will also seek reorganisation of the industry through the I.R.C.
We recognise that action is overdue and therefore we support the intentions of the Bill. We have, however, two major criticisms to make. First, the Bill in itself does little to indicate how the additional assistance is to be operated. The

only financial information in the Bill—which is a great contrast to the previous one—is found in the introductory paragraphs of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Clearly the Bill will mean little until it is accompanied by the Order to which the Minister referred.
The Minister has today given further information. I hope that he will consider the suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that he should try to make available a draft Order before the actual Order is made. He will recognise that it is difficult to have a debate on the technical provisions arising from this Bill until we know the details of the Government's proposals.
Our second criticism is that we believe that, even after four years in gestation, the Bill is, broadly speaking, a stop-gap rather than a cure. It increases the subsidy but does little to tackle the core of the industry's problem. I think that the Minister will agree with me that the core of the problem is that we cannot land British fish in European ports but the European countries can land their fish in our ports, and apparently quite often this fish is landed at prices well below the cost of production. We have heard a little more about this today, and later I will ask some questions about the 10 per cent. levy which the Minister mentioned.
We recognise that the Bill affects only the deep sea fleet—that is, the distant water, middle and near water vessels—and that the herring and inshore vessels continue to be assisted as before. I believe that the House recognises that there is a need in Britain for a deep sea fleet. Indeed, the Minister emphasised this in his opening remarks. It is clear that, if the fleet were allowed to disappear, it would affect our balance of payments by at least £40 million, probably more, and it would allow foreign catchers to more or less set their own price for fish.
The deep sea fleet has been greatly assisted by the last Sea Fisheries Act—that of 1962, which was introduced by the then Conservative Government and which started operating subsidies for distant water vessels. Since then the conditions under which these vessels operate has deteriorated. The obvious reasons, and ones well outside the control of our own industry are—traditional fishing grounds


have been lost; foreign subsidies have been greatly increased; and imports, especially those of frozen fillets, have greatly accelerated. At the same time, the cost of replacing the older vessels in the fleet has risen and the fishermen, rightly, have demanded better conditions and, quite often, better pay.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said this in winding up our last debate:
First there are subsidies, secondly E.F.T.A. and imports, thirdly the I.R.C. and fourthly the human aspect…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 538.]
I want to consider those four headings separately.
First, subsidies. Both sides of the House recognise that the need for subsidies is caused by factors largely outside the control of our own industry. I stress that the need is now demonstrated very clearly by the fact that not one port or one section of the deep water fleet made a surplus last year after allowing for depreciation. This is obviously a very serious fact. I am informed that the fleet as a whole showed a loss averaging £18·6 per vessel per day. Landings, it is true, were up, but grossings were down—down by 9 per cent. in Hull and by 6·3 per cent. in Grimsby. Average prices per kit of fish fell from 86s. in 1967 to 78s. this year.
What is even more worrying is that the fish unsold and sent to fishmeal factories increased by just under 200 per cent. in Hull and by just over 500 per cent. in Grimsby. These are startling figures.
In 1966, the distant water fleet operating from B.T.F. ports consisted of 189 vessels. A year later it consisted of 173 vessels. The figure is now 163, which includes five laid up. I suggest that the problem is made even more serious by the fact that of the present operating B.T.F. fleet of 96 conventional wet fish trawlers 55 were built in 1951 or earlier. This means that 50 or 60 will have to be replaced within the next 10 years. New stern fishers cost about £500,000. The House does not have to be very good at mental arithmetic to calculate the total sum involved. It justifies the need, which the Minister has stressed, for both building and for increased operating subsidies.
I had intended to deal at some length with the question of how the subsidies are to be applied, because, as I have said before, there is very little information in the Bill. The Minister has now told us a little more. He has said that the basis for the assessment of efficiency and profitability, on which the whole scheme stands or falls, will be that of added value. I understand that means all profits, less depreciation and crews' wages. Has this formula, which obviously will have to be studied but which at first sight seems to be a reasonable one, been agreed first by the British Trawler Federation and, secondly, by the Scottish Trawler Federation?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: These matters are now being discussed, as I indicated in my speech, with the Federation and the union. I hope that there will be agreement on an added value formula very quickly. This is one of the difficulties of introducing details of the scheme in time for the Committee stage, but we will do our best on that.

Mr. Wall: I am grateful to the Minister for the amount of information he gave us today, because he will appreciate that Clause I contains very little information, as do the first four Clauses, which are the core of the Bill.
May I ask the Minister a question which arises out of this and which was asked in our last debate. He said that payments are to be made in arrears. How will this be applied to crew payments? They will obviously have to receive a bonus. Can this be paid in arrears, when the crew might have been dispersed? I admit that this is really a problem for the industry itself, but it is one which I hope that the Minister will bear in mind when he has these discussions.
The whole question of profitability and efficiency and the definition thereof is of very great importance to everyone in the industry. I stress that there has been a four-year review. I imagine that all these points have been thoroughly investigated and I hope that they will be agreed so that, as the Minister prophesied, payments will be able to be made early in the new year.
May I now—fairly briefly, I hope-turn to the question of imports. Surely there must be some relation between the


greatly increased foreign subsidies, particularly in Norway, where they rose by 57 per cent. last year and I understand have increased again this year, particularly in the case of dried fish, and in Denmark in respect of Greenland, and the increased volume of foreign landings in British ports. The value of all fish imports landed in the first eight months of this year is, I understand, £2 million more than that for the corresponding eight months of last year.
I admit that this is a difficult problem, because we must consider our partners in E.F.T.A. Some time ago the Minister told us that we were to have talks. He has told us today that those talks have failed. He has said that there will therefore be a 10 per cent. import surcharge on all imported fish, or is it only on the additional imported fish above the amount authorised under the Stockholm Agreement?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: All.

Mr. Wall: All landings from all countries?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We are referring to frozen fish fillets.

Mr. Wall: I am sorry, but I want to get this absolutely clear because it was announced only a few minutes ago. Is I there to be a 10 per cent. import levy or duty on all landings of frozen fish or on frozen fillets?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Fillets.

Mr. Wall: So it applies to the Annexe to the Stockholm Agreement. It applies to that Agreement, in which we recognised that frozen fillets would be included in industrial products. It applies to all landings, not just those in excess of the 24,000 tons which were authorised?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Yes.

Mr. Wall: I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up that point. I think that he will agree that imports of processed fish this year increased by 55 per cent. in the first quarter, so obviously this is a matter which he has to consider very carefully indeed. Obviously we have to consider the statement made today and see to what extent this will redress the balance.
Speaking very much off the cuff, I do not think that this will cure the major difficulty faced by the industry, which is that of virtually unrestricted imports. Once again I ask the Minister—I have mentioned this in a previous speech—to bear in mind the Recommendation which the Select Committee made in paragraph 30(5) of its Report:
Quotas, levies and minimum import prices to protect the British industry should be seriously considered and the matter pursued energetically with the E.F.T.A. countries.
Today, we know that the Government have pursued the matter with the E.F.T.A. countries, they have not reached a satisfactory conclusion, and they have, therefore, had to impose unilaterally a 10 per cent. levy.
However, the suggestion of the Select Committee, as I understand it, related to long-term policy and the need to consider the whole future of the fishing industry on this basis. I say again that we are the only unrestricted market in Europe for imported foreign fish. Failure to act will have consequences for the taxpayer. The taxpayer will now have to pay up to £4 million on operating subsidies. The more imports we receive, the more the taxpayer will have to pay.
Will the Minister tell us whether, in his investigations and discussions with E.F.T.A., there was evidence to establish that dumping had taken place? There are methods of dealing with this problem, but I gather that definition is difficult. Perhaps the Minister who winds up the debate will say whether the question was gone into and what evidence was produced on either side.
May we be told also—I put this to the Minister in a previous speech—whether consideration has been given, in the context of the long-term problem of imports, to the policy now being put forward by the Common Market? In this connection, I quote three short passages from the Common Market document dated June this year. The first tells us that the Common Market policy
establishes a common system governing fishing in maritime waters.… The Member States ensure equal conditions of access and exploitation of the fishing grounds situated in maritime waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction".
Next:
These measures have in view the reorganisation of fishing fleets, the investigation


of new fishing grounds, the provision of stocking and deep-freezing plants, qualifications, vocational retraining and stability of employment.
The Minister has many of those matters in mind himself. My final quotation is on pricing:
The price system lays down guide, intervention, reserve, reference and floor prices.
If our European neighbours are developing a long-term import policy on those lines, we ought at least to take cognisance of it. We believe that the subsidy bill of the future could be cut if some long-term control over imports were established, including, perhaps, a variable import levy. We should very much like to know what the Government have in mind for curing the long-term problem as opposed to the short-term matters with which the Minister dealt today.
Now, the reorganisation of the industry. Reorganisation is needed not only because of the financial difficulties of the industry but because, as I said, 50 or 60 conventional trawlers will have to be replaced in the next 10 years. I understand that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is proposing an amalgamation of the 189 ships of Associated Fisheries, Boston and the Ross Group, which together land about 66 per cent. of British landings. This is open knowledge now as it has been referred to in public speeches by the chairman of the I.R.C.
What makes us wonder about such an amalgamation is that in 1966 the Monopolies Commission prohibited an amalgamation of Ross and Associated Fisheries. I understand that the basic ground for that prohibition was an objection to joint marketing proposals. But, surely, this is just what is now needed. There is a general desire to move away where possible from auctions. What is now proposed? If the I.R.C. is considering that amalgamation, how will it get by the difficulties already put forward by the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The proposals have not been finalised, and they have not been submitted to me. As I said, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

Mr. Wall: I appreciate that difficulty, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the matter is public knowledge and has been referred to by the chairman of the I.R.C. in public speeches. In the circumstances, it is right that the Opposition should probe the question. I hope that the Minister will soon make a clear statement about it. It seems to me that there are considerable difficulties attendant upon any such proposal. Perhaps, when he makes a statement, the right hon. Gentleman will assure us also that the small owner and small merchant will not be squeezed out by the formation of any new consortium.
In the same connection, there is the whole question of the relationship of the I.R.C. with the White Fish Authority. I understand that the I.R.C. would remain involved and that there would probably be Government directors appointed to the new company, if it matures. Thus, we should have two semi-State boards involved in one industry, which could lead to complications.
I come now to Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill. We presume that Clause 2 is preparatory for the landing of boxed fish from factory ships and that Clause 4 might be the prelude to a statutory minimum price scheme. Will the Minister tell us what is proposed? The question has been before the House on many occasions, and we should like to know whether there is likely to be a statutory minimum price scheme with a Government financial contribution. Is it still being considered by the industry and the Government?
The industry operates its own voluntary minimum price scheme. That scheme was referred to the Restrictive Practices Court and was found to be in the public interest. I have here a letter from the Treasury Solicitor, acting on behalf of the Registrar, which reads:
I confirm my telephone conversation to say that in view of the findings of the Court in the Distant Water Vessels Development Scheme, in relation both to distant water vessels and to near and middle water vessels, the Registrar does not propose on the basis of the agreement at present registered to contest this case further.
Now, two years later, I understand that the Registrar is considering reversing his decision. Will the Minister look into this matter? Considerable difficulty and expense could be put on the industry's


shoulders; it went through a good deal last time, and one hopes that it will not have to face the same loss of time and money once again.
There are many important matters covered by the Bill which I have no time to discuss now, but I must touch briefly on the human aspect. Problems of safety at sea have been emphasised recently by the findings of the inquiry into the sinking of the three Hull trawlers earlier this year. There have been recommendations regarding weather reports, communications and stability. I am sure that the Holland Martin Committee will consider all those matters.
Here again, the basic problem is that of rapid replacement of the conventional trawler which is now becoming obsolete by modern stern fishers with better amenities. I commend to the Minister Recommendation 2 of the Select Committee:
There should be encouragement of research and development into the mother ship system…
Such a system might well be of help in improving safety at sea, and I hope that something is being done about it. Good safety and good working conditions go together and are of great importance. I understand that grants of 40 per cent. are available now for improving safety or safety devices. Both sides of the House agree that efficient ships are safe ships. As the Bill is based on the aim of promoting efficient ships, it will be of assistance from the point of view of safety.
The Minister dealt with a most important section of the Bill, that dealing with conservation, but I have no time to go into that now. I say only that we on this side recognise the problem as fundamental, not only for our generation but for future generations. We support the Clauses designed to promote some form of international policing system agreed by all nations and to bring into operation the agreement reached in 1967 for a Convention of Conduct in the North Atlantic. The right hon. Gentleman told us that 18 countries had already signed the Convention. I take it that they are already introducing legislation, as we are, in order to allow the Convention to be ratified? We shall do all we can to assist in that matter.
I sum up in this way. We believe the Bill to be sound, though it is basically a short-term measure. We note that the position will be reviewed in 1970 before the provisions of the Bill are continued into the 1971–72 period. We note that it does not deal with the inshore and herring fleets and, therefore, we shall have to have an annual debate on inshore and herring operations when the Order is tabled. We hope that this does not mean that we shall no longer have our annual debate covering all sections of the fishing industry. Back-bench Members on both sides regard such a debate as essential.
I have asked a number of questions, and I hope that the Minister will realise that we consider them important. A fundamental point is that we need more information on the proposed draft Order before we can give full consideration to the proposals in the Bill. Another is that we hope that the Government will let us know their thinking on the long-term problem of imports. The Minister will agree that his announcement today on the 10 per cent. levy is only an interim arrangement.

Hon. Members: Very welcome.

Mr. Wall: I do not deny that for a moment. This is an important Bill, which I hope will be of great benefit to the industry. But the Minister said that the Government were looking at the long term. The Bill has been in gestation for four years, and we hope that we shall eventually pass legislation that will last the industry for a long time. We do not believe that that is possible unless the long-term problem of foreign imports is fully tackled.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I found the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister very stimulating, and, as a Member for a fishing port with the biggest deep sea fleet in Western Europe, I also found it very encouraging. Unlike the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who damned the Bill with somewhat faint praise, I think that we are set fair for at least four years. The Bill gives the industry a chance to revive and build itself up, and I hope that a long-term policy will evolve long before the end of that period.
I have listened to fishermen in Hull for some years, and they have told me of the vicissitudes of the past, of the good times and the bad. For some years there has been pessimism in the fish dock among merchants, fishermen, owners and the like. Under the old conditions of laissez-faire capitalism, followed by the non-selective subsidy after the Fleck Report, we did not get along very well. In 1962 the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) criticised the old set-up, and I believe that history will be on his side. That is why we are here today with this Bill.
The new policy has been warmly welcomed on all sides, despite the hon. Gentleman's description of it as "short-term". Spokesmen of all sections of industry in all the fishing ports have warmly welcomed it. For the first time, the Government have taken a good, hard look at the industry and given us a chance to get up off our knees, where some people thought we had been for some time. It gives hope to the fishing community.
It is pleasant, however, to note the attitude of the Opposition. In the debate on 24th July, the hon. Member for Haltemprice said:
…we on this side of the House will support the Order and Scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 504.]
No one says that fishing matters are non-political, but at least let them be non-party. Let us all work together for the good of our port constituents.
I was glad to hear the Minister's decision about a 10 per cent. levy upon imports of frozen fillets. Apart from being an economic factor, this is a very emotional factor in the lives of our people in the ports. I raised this matter with the E.F.T.A. Parliamentarians and again on the Floor of the Council of Europe, and it is very important that we consider the question of excessive landings. Perhaps it is not quite my right hon. Friend's pigeon, but he might press his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the question of bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements, and heavy landings of foreign vessels on the Humber.
The Bill is mainly for the purpose of authorising new finance, and there are continuing discussions with owners and the unions about the future. Since the cash will be distributed on the basis of efficiency of the vessels, the question is which vessels are efficient and profitable. I hope that the "big squeeze" will now be on. Certainly I expect early elimination of the steam trawlers, many of which are in the 50 and 60 segment of the fleet that the hon. Member for Haltemprice spoke about. They must go, because of their age and the weaknesses of their design.
The next priority is to dispose of side trawlers, with all their hazards. This should be comparatively easy with the distant and middle water fleets, where stern trawlers have shown their superiority over the past year. I am thankful that in Hull, Mr. Mark Hellyer, the owner of the lost "Kingston Peridot", has scrapped her sister trawler, the "Kingston Sardius", which was fishing at the same time in the same waters as the "Peridot" went down some months ago.
My right hon. Friend said on 8th July that the best way of improving fishermen's conditions and wages was by making the industry prosperous and efficient—hence the legislation on which we are now embarked. In Hull we have a guaranteed fall-back pay of about £20 7s. But this wages question is one for employers and unions. I understand that the Transport and General Workers' Union will be meeting the Minister later this week on the matter. I was very glad to hear him tell us that the wage factor would not be used in estimating the "added value" in the catch. Am I correct?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The wage is not calculated as part of the operational cost.

Mr. Johnson: Decasualisation is taxing our minds on the Hull Dock. The industry is clearly moving towards decasualisation, and we have port registration schemes. From my knowledge of the Hull companies, ship's articles are now quite anachronistic. We are moving towards decasualisation in the companies, and later I hope that we shall move towards it over the whole field, know from my local union leaders that they are worried about the quality of the intake of men. That is why the Bill is so important. If the industry becomes


prosperous we shall have better wages and conditions and thus get a better intake of men, as happened in the coal pits after nationalisation. I gather that Lowestoft had somewhat of a shock with its advertising scheme in Birmingham, and that the quality of labour there is not all it should be.
Besides its financial measures, the Bill enables the White Fish Authority to seek regulations for the charging of the penny which is now imposed per stone, and its increase up to 2d. per stone of fish landed. I understand that the Authority needs more money, and we looked at its difficulties in the Select Committee. It is in debt at present. My view is that if we proceed with 2d. per stone there will be a big battle inside the industry, because the vessel owners and merchants that I meet do not think that they are getting value for money. We came to the conclusion in our Committee that we should abolish the White Fish Authority, or, if it could justify itself, give it more money to do its job properly. I find that Clause 4 speaks about this. I can only understand from this that the Minister's intention is to expand the White Fish Authority, for otherwise why include it in the Bill? Why have paving for anything if one does not intend people to walk on the pavement and be given solid support? However, we shall no doubt discuss this in detail in Committee.
What ever we may have said about the failure of the White Fish Authority to advertise, and increase the present static consumption of 19 lbs. per head per annum, and also to improve the marketing of fish; no one can deny the value of its effort in the field of research and development. I believe that it is doing wonderful work in that way, but find that skippers and men do not always use it to the best advantage.

Mr. Wall: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that we have now, as well as the White Fish Authority, the added complication of the I.R.C.? I am not saying that the I.R.C. is not necessary, but it is more complication.

Mr. Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my own speech, I shall come to the I.R.C. in four or five minutes.
I welcome the remaining Clauses, 5–14, dealing with safeguards for fishing operations, inspection of foreign vessels and so on. I believe that this represents a big step forward. I hope I do not sound chauvinistic, but welcome the facts that we are asserting ourselves more internationally. This is an important step, and will please our fishermen, who have in the past complained about the depredations by alien vessels within the 12 mile limit and indeed outside it. Our fishery protection officers are now given power to board alien vessels.
I know that size of mesh and size of fish are Committee points, but I wish to say at this stage that there are some blatant offenders in the North Sea waters and well beyond. We need not go into the subject of industrial fishing, but the Communist States and France in particular are, in my opinion, guilty in this context. I am told that the French love to have small fish in their soups—bouillabaisse and so on. But this does not justify the extent of their activities in our waters. Conservation of stocks is so very important. The small fish become bigger fish, and one does not catch big fish, unless the smaller ones are allowed to become big.
I have been out, with the hon. Member for Haltemprice, on fishery protection vessels in the North Sea, H.M.S. "Letterston" and others, and I know what a good job these ships have done. I wish the Minister could coax his fellow Minister of Defence to provide a few more such vessels, to guard our waters from the entry of anti-social types from the Continent.
The Bill will shape for good or ill the future destiny of our fishing fleet, with all that this means for the welfare of tens of thousands of people in Fleetwood, Hull and elsewhere. It is extremely important that we should have it before us today.
I have touched on wages and industrial relations. What about the size, shape and structure of the catching fleet? As to the financial measures in the Bill, why has the I.R.C. been called in, as American efficiency experts have to the City of London? I believe that the vessel owners need advice. Whether the City of London does I do not know. However, I offer all credit to the B.TA. for the welcome


that it has given to this proposal by accepting this stimulant.
The I.R.C. must be more than a catalyst. I accept that view of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) who a few days ago told the Minister that if one is to use taxpayers' money for footing the bill for the fishing industry or at least part of it, for modernising vessels and improving the conditions of the workers, there should be more public ownership.
For a long time—I note my colleague in Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is with me in this—I have believed in a State Fishing Board. I want an efficient fleet with modern stern fishing vessels. One would expect their performance to be a yardstick to which others could measure up. Why do I want this? I have watched how in the coalmining industry with public ownership, public accountability and public servants we then achieved standards in safety and many other fields. I have in mind safe vessel design, working and living conditions on a par with the Eastern Communist fleets, such as those of the Poles, who sleep many fewer fishermen in a cabin than we often do; day-by-day terms of service; wage agreements; and so on.
I think that the Minister, as a Welshman, will agree that we never got adequate safety measures in the pits until we had the National Coal Board. So I want to see a State Fishing Board. This year's disasters dog us today in all our ports, although the vessels sailed out of West Hull. It is my belief that we shall never get daily contact between the vessels and the home base, and full manning, until we pass legislation insisting that we have qualified radio operators on the vessels and until we have a State Fishing Board with its vessels setting the pace in this way.
As a personal note, I have in my constituency a family which lost a boy of 15 years in those disasters early this year. It was less than six months after he had left his secondary school. In passing, I would point out—I hope that the Minister and all others who are concerned are listening—that when any young male under 18 is lost his family gets no compensation. This is why we

are so concerned and become emotional about safeguarding the lives of our constituents.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would my hon. Friend not also agree that it becomes particularly heartbreaking when the person of 18 years or under is the only wage earner in a family and the widowed mother gets nothing?

Mr. Johnson: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I are well acquainted with the homes of these people. This is why I emphasise the need for sufficient safety measure.
The subject of design is vital. It is not merely stern fishing techniques. We want side fishing as well, but it involves danger. We need more comfort for the men in all fields of this hazardous calling.
Stability of vessels is also extremely important. I am deeply grateful to Mr. Naisbett, Q.C., for what he said about this subject at the inquiry in Hull. We must eliminate the danger of trawlers being top heavy in Arctic waters because of the accumulation of ice. The hon. Member who represents the port of Fleet-wood is present. I visited the B.A.C. works at Weybridge some months ago to see a wonderful experiment in the test chamber there with de-icing equipment made by a firm in his constituency. It consists of putting a rubber sheathing on the superstructure. By this means, using compressed air, the ice can be fractured and dislodged. It is a very important development. I also commend the work of the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington on vessel stability.
The Bill is warmly welcomed by the industry. I again emphasise that there is continuing support for four years. As I see it, if the fleet is having a bad time we increase the global subsidy. The greater the efficiency of any vessel within the fleet, the larger its share will be, I imagine, of the global subsidy. This will weed out the weaker vessels in these days of ruthless competition.
We all know that the trawler industry needs a massive face lift. Only the Government can carry out this surgical operation. Traditionally the industry has been made up of individual units, and it still is. There are many family firms just as there were in coal mining or the


steel industry before nationalisation. No one doubts that lack of sufficient capital has been an important factor in the past. Without capital these units cannot move and plan ahead on equal terms with the subsidised fleets of Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. But I do not subscribe to some of the careless strictures of the B.B.C. in its documentary, "The Great Fish Muddle".
My constituents on the fish docks and at sea are hard-headed. They do not accept all the superficial comments of a programme like that. It is easy to use words like "archaic" and "quaint". What is the alternative to wet fish landings and auctions? I have never heard of one. With more deep freezers and more fish coming back in deep frozen condition, therefore, there will be fewer merchants but I cannot but see that the auctions will continue—perhaps with better quality fish—permanently for wet fish landings.
There is urgent need for vertical and horizontal integration—in other words, a merger. The merger must be large enough to have adequate managerial structure and to produce economies of scale. It must be large enough to organise expeditions to the South Atlantic—to new fishing banks. However, that is not as simple as the Poles and others make out. We shall get some unusual factors, not least sociological.
I cannot see many Hull wives being happy about their husbands leaving their families behind for six months on end as the Communist fishing fleets do. This is not a simple matter, although I accept that, if we are over-fishing the North Atlantic, we must go further afield.
I am told that discussions are taking place between the I.R.C. and the three largest deep water fishing companies—Associated Fisheries, the Ross Group and Boston Deep Sea. I believe that this would involve 180 vessels. But some of the firms have interests in poultry and frozen food. I take it that it is hoped to amalgamate the boats into one large fleet and I assume that amalgamation would also cover the frozen food side.
Expansion of the fleet into a size of this nature is clearly necessary. I am convinced that there must be more aggressive marketing methods from the quayside to the shop counter. We shall

see a much better fishing industry. Given that, and given decent working conditions for the men, I have no doubt that fishing will still, as in the past, be a job for men of courage and endurance, and no men have more courage and endurance than the fishermen. They have played a vital part in our island history. They are fine men with guts and they deserve the best we can give them. The very existence of our trawling fleet is at stake and I do not believe that the Government will let us down.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: It is always a great pleasure to speak in a debate after the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). He has a great knowledge of the fishing industry which extends over many years, and his views are, therefore, to be listened to with respect. He started by making a plea that we should discuss this matter in a non-partisan spirit but then suggested that we should nationalise the fishing fleet. He cannot expect us to follow him in that partisan view. I hope to reply to some of the points he raised.
I must declare an interest. As a solicitor practising in a fishing port, I act for people from all parts of the industry—trawler owners, fishermen and merchants. In particular, I have acted from time to time for one trawler-owning firm which I shall mention later.
As the Minister said, the Bill is a paving measure for a scheme which will give us the details and is part of an overall strategy. If we on this side criticise some parts of the strategy, it is not because we do not want the Bill—we do—but because both within and outside the industry there are different emphases on the best measures to be taken.
I appreciate that the Parliamentary draftsmen have produced a precise way in the Bill of achieving what the right hon. Gentleman wants and I am sympathetic to that point of view. On the other hand, to someone who is not an expert at reading Parliamentary shorthand—because that is virtually what the first four Clauses are written in—it is difficult to understand those Clauses because they must be read in conjunction with a Schedule. That is not easy and I suggest that there should be added a Schedule to relate in full the consequences of the


amendments to present legislation so that the ordinary person can understand the full effect of this Bill.
I want to deal not so much with the need for a subsidy—a case which has already been made out—but with the effects which the subsidy will have. The Minister said that, in itself, the subsidy would not solve the problems of the fishing fleet and he detailed the remaining part of his strategy, including some control of imports. Whether the 10 per cent. will be enough is a matter of judgment. Only time will tell whether it will have a sufficient effect. We must give the measures a chance and I welcome this Bill.
The question of reconstruction is still wrapped in mystery so I do not propose to pursue it. But I do want to discuss the question of a national minimum price scheme. The great difference here is between the English and Scottish attitudes. If it were left to the English major fishing ports there would not be much trouble in getting agreement. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) looking at me but what I have said represents the feeling in England.
Many parts of the industry feel that the future of the English industry at any rate cannot be viable unless a satisfactory minimum price scheme is introduced. This is something which the White Fish Authority, if it is going to be able to get more money from the industry, could pursue and which the Minister ought not to reject in full at this stage. It is well worth pursuing.
I come now to some of the practical effects the Bill could have. Safety is of great concern to all of us. I should say that there have been more attacks on the industry in relation to safety and other aspects during the past year than in any other year in its history. Some criticism has been valid. Some has been interesting in leading to improvements in safety. But some has been far from constructive, has not helped and has, indeed, created great resentment in the industry.
The subsidy will help safety because we shall not get safety in anything but a viable fleet and it is necessary to replace many of our trawlers with more modern vessels as soon as possible. How-

ever, something could be done more quickly with our existing trawlers, and I am anxious that it should be done this winter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said that if the fleet were nationalised, we might have better safety measures, but I am sure that he appreciates that private industry has great care and concern in these matters.

Mr. James Johnson: I was not casting any aspersions on any companies or individuals in the industry. I was saying that it has been our experience, in coal mining, for example, which I know well, that when there is a public sector with public accountability, there is much more invigilation and much more care, with more safety officers to look after this very important aspect of the work.

Mr. Clegg: I pay credit to the National Coal Board for what it has done about safety, but even the Coal Board can make miscalculations which lead to disaster. Many industries have a good safety record, including private industries.
The question is what can be done to make the ships safe, if possible, during the coming winter. The hon. Gentleman has already mentioned de-icing procedures. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I attended an exhibition of de-icing and what we saw there shows what can be done and done quickly. During the recent inquiry in Hull, it was reported that one of the Board of Trade surveyors said that de-icing was a very complicated and expensive business. I am not so certain that that is right.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman said that it was a Board of Trade surveyor, but that is not my recollection. Unless he is certain, he ought to say that it was a witness.

Mr. Clegg: That was my recollection, but if I am wrong, I willingly withdraw. Certainly a witness said this at the inquiry
Within a week of the disasters of last winter, a firm, B.T.R. Limited, which is close to but not in my constituency and which manufactures de-icing equipment for aircraft, suggested to Boston Deep Sea Fisheries Ltd., which operates from Fleetwood, that it had a device which might help with de-icing. Within another week that equipment had been fitted and


a trawler with it had left for the fishing grounds. Since then and with the full cooperation of the Boston company, which the other companies concerned readily acknowledge, and with the co-operation of I.C.I. and the British Aircraft Corporation, which provided research facilities, this type of de-icing has been extended not only to the masts, but to the bridge superstructure by using rubber panels.
In addition, I.C.I. has now produced a non-stretch rope to replace steel ropes which will prevent the formation of ice, or make it easy to get rid of ice in severe icing conditions, because it needs only a slight vibration. The object of this, as with all de-icing equipment, is to bring the ice to deck where it can be dealt with. The estimated cost of this device is about £3,500 for the average trawler with another £250 or so for the standing rigging, and, in the context of operating costs and with the Government grants which would be available, this is a very limited amount.
The "Boston Phantom" under its skipper Mr. Rawcliffe has received permission to operate in Icelandic waters and it is hoped that as soon as the icing conditions are appropriate final field experiments will be carried out. I hope that the Board of Trade will keep in the closest touch with these developments, for it is on the cards that our ships could be fitted with this device during this winter and before the weather gets too bad. The hon. Gentleman and I were told that the material was available to do a very quick job on equipping the whole fleet.
One of the criticisms of the industry concerns its marketing. With frozen fish being landed in cartons and coming ashore more and more as other cargoes, there is a new dimension to the whole marketing problem and large units may be needed to handle this side of the operation. There has also been much criticism of the smaller merchants and the smaller firms. I have a feeling that, so complicated is the industry and so varied the demand in parts of the country, there will always be a place for the small men, but only if they combine with each other to make themselves more efficient. This can and has been done. Not long ago, under the "Beeching Axe", British Railways did

away with its fish train service at Fleet-wood and the merchants had to provide themselves with methods of getting fish fresh from Fleetwood to other parts of the country. Without any outside help, they built up their own fleet of modern refrigerated transport which now takes Fleetwood fish to various areas throughout the country. This is an example of private enterprise tackling the problem and of small people combining to overcome it. The difficulties in their way are not of their own making but result rather from Government legislation controlling transport, and we do not yet know what will be the effect of the new Transport Act.
I welcome the Bill and look forward to seeing it in Committee and particularly to hearing about the details of the scheme. I am worried about how efficiency is to be defined. Two trawlers, each efficiently equipped and with a good crew, could go to sea and one could land its catch in a good market while the other, just as efficient, could land its catch in a bad market, making a bad price. What would be the test of efficiency then? It would be the difference in the markets rather than the crews or vessels which produced the difference. The only solution which I can see is for the trawler firms to manage to have their ships come in at the right time, and there will then be even more communication between shore and sea to ensure that they do so.
I hope that the Bill is a step in the right direction, but I am not entirely convinced that without an upsurge in world markets this and the other suggested measures will be enough. I hope that they will be, because we all want the fishing industry to be a viable proposition as soon as possible.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It is very pleasant to find ourselves again considering the fishing industry and indeed an important piece of fishing legislation. It is right that it should have come first on the day's Parliamentary menu, even though our start was rather delayed.
The fishing industry is extremely important nationally and extremely important to the constituencies involved in it. It is an industry apt to be unusually dominant in those towns dependent upon it.


The Bill is something of a mixed bag but basically it falls into two parts. I do not intend to deal with Clauses 5 to 14 at any length, because in a sense they are uncontroversial and will be accepted by both sides of the House. I would just say in passing that there are points of substance and a large number of details to be ironed out, not only in terms of the operation of fleets, foreign boats in our waters, but also fishing limits. This was brought home in North-East Scotland recently by one comparatively small, but not unimportant incident, which took place in waters off the Isle of Man.
I do not want to labour the point at any great length, but the House will be aware that two boats from Peterhead were arrested for pair trawling, an activity carried out in a way which would have been perfectly acceptable and legal off every other stretch of the British coast. The two vessels were run in, if I may use that phrase, by British boats and heavily fined. In correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland I have made it clear that I find this a somewhat Ruritanian and ludicrous situation.
I am interested in Clause 21 to see that there is provision for Orders in Council relating to fishing limits off the Isle of Man. I recognise that this may be a fit matter for discussion by the Constitutional Commission, mentioned in the Gracious Speech. Some of us however are not prepared to wait four or five years while this Commission comes to a conclusion. I hope that the Ministry will be prepared to be more flexible than it has so far indicated in its attitude.
I know that the Under-Secretary told me in a letter that he did not consider it a major factor in the future activities of these boats. That is what he suggested. Certainly the local skippers to whom I have talked take a more serious view. They have not been happy with the view that it is not practical to open negotiations with the Isle of Man authorities.
The Herring Industry Board has said that there is a possibility that this will be a considerable difficulty in future years, and that boats can be expected to be fishing in Isle of Man waters from the beginning of August, when the herring shoals are still within the three-mile limit. I gather that the Herring Board

is approaching the Manx authorities with a view to having the 1965 Act, which was enforced by the Ministry's fishing protection vessels, changed. If it is possible for the Herring Board to consider this it is right that the British Government should also consider this matter. It may not be a large issue, but it is important to the skippers and crews concerned. I accept that in the context of this debate it is a small issue.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I would like to take the chance of reinforcing, especially from the point of view of the future, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman about the very serious nature of this issue for the work of the Scottish fleet. I hope that the Government will take this up.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member and myself are entirely at one on the importance that a number of local groups attach to this, and I hope that we will have some action when the Government have time to consider it further.
This is to some extent an aside. The main section of the Bill deals with the new subsidy scheme. It is sweeping away the outdated and very restrictive machinery set up by the 1962 Act, and obviously in future our debates on the fishing industry will no longer be bedevilled by the sadly impractical vision of a fleet that was to be viable by 1972. It is quite clear from the wide-ranging nature of the speeches that the subsidy system is not necessarily the only factor affecting the future of the near, middle and far distant fleet. We have heard a great deal in previous debates and this afternoon about imports of white fish. There is enormous room for import saving here. Most of us have welcomed the announcements we heard from the Despatch Box of the 10 per cent. surcharge.
There is also the matter of the minimum price scheme. I saw in the Press on 1st November a speech by the Chairman of the White Fish Authority in which he stated again his conviction, and presumably the conviction of the Authority, that a medium price scheme, properly organised, was an essential basis for the future prosperity of the industry. I accept that, and as far as I know everyone in my port is prepared to go along with it. One point which is always


raised, and I accept it, is that there was opposition 18 months ago from a certain section of the industry and indeed there still is opposition. I am not convinced that this cannot be removed by the right Government action and Government acceptance of the need for some sort of financial support for a scheme.
I notice that the Chairman of the White Fish Authority said that it was waiting for a decision by the Government in this matter before it could go on to make up its mind. If there is a case of waiting for a decision I hope that it will not be postponed indefinitely. I have gained the impression, perhaps unfortunately, from what has been said in the past that the Government are waiting for the W.F.A. to make up its mind, while apparently the W.F.A. is waiting for the Government. At some time we have to get this resolved and I would like to see some action soon.
There is also the important matter of the rather mysterious activities, so far undefined, of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. No one would deny that there is an enormously important area for the I.R.C. here. The fishing industry needs restructuring, and there is enormous scope for increased efficiency. I am glad to hear that the I.R.C. has been twice seen in Aberdeen, and has had a number of sessions with individual firms. I hope that when the reports and recommendations finally appear there will not be overdue stress on the unique problems of Hull, Grimsby and the deep sea fleet, but that it will be remembered that there are other ports, with important industries, which are not deep-sea ports, but which are still very much in need of encouragement and reform.
The essential theme of the Bill is the new subsidy scheme. What we are told is what we already knew—we have the global sum and the important question is how that sum is to be divided. The announcement about the subsidy, when it was made in July got a good response from the industry, and it deserved to. Rapture has been qualified since in some quarters, understandably. No Government ever gives enough, and I appreciate exactly why some people have reservations about arrangements that have been made. Obviously if the industry is compared with the situation in agriculture,

with that in some other countries, Norway for example, we are not being treated in a particularly princely way.
One or two ingenious people have sent me calculations to suggest that if over the last three or four years we applied inshore subsidy rates to the hundredweights landed by the Scottish trawler fleet, it can be seen that the fleet would have come out rather better than was the case. This is now behind us, and we accept the global sum as a starting point. The argument left is how we apply this principle which we welcome and accept, of efficiency. It is of particular importance, not only because the fishing fleet will get better returns, which will mean lower prices for the customer and greater viability, but it will also mean greater safety, something in all our minds after the recent disasters.
Efficiency is an extremely difficult concept to measure. I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) about bad markets. This is a hunting industry and there are all sorts of variables and difficulties. Obviously there must to some extent be an element of lottery here. The Minister gave us some basic, skeleton information, which was welcome, as to how the added value was to be calculated for an individual vessel.
As I understand it, it was to be a matter of taking a vessel's earnings and deducting from this the costs. This was to give the added value to which the size of the subsidy for the vessel was to be geared. That raises the question of how one defines costs. Here again the Minister was helpful and he made it specifically clear that costs were to exclude the wages bill. There is doubtless a case for this but it is causing some concern in certain quarters. If we are going for efficiency, obviously use of manpower is one factor in the efficiency quotient. It may be a point that if we exclude wages and say, in effect, that the subsidy bears no relation to the crew ratios and the manning of the vessel, we are possibly excluding an incentive for increased mechanisation and more efficient methods of handling fish and catching on the grounds. Although I recognise that there are arguments on the other side, I am not entirely happy about the exclusion of wages as such.
I recognise that it is possible to say that if we include wages we are saying to the owners, "If you keep your wages down your subsidy will go up", and that there is already a strong natural tendency for any owner to want to keep his wage bill down, which will be increased. We accept that the wage structure is, in many respects, too low and that if we are to get over manning difficulties and to give men a proper return for the tremendous efforts which they put in to the industry we do not want to discourage a proper share for them. I accept that if we give a built-in incentive to hold down crews we may be striking at the safety factors.
But I am not convinced that these are conclusive arguments, for a number of reasons. I hope that the industry would not be averse to higher wages if they were geared to greater productivity in the labour force. This is very much a matter for the unions and the employers to negotiate. I am not sure that the added twist of allowing wages to be included so that the wage bill has some relation to the subsidy is such an enormously important factor as to outweigh the general argument that wages, which are an important element of any added value figure, should be included as an incentive to modernisation.
Although I know—and this point can be fairly made—that labour relations in my port and many other ports have not been of the best—I still meet antedeluvian, positively nineteenth century attitudes to labour relations and a very paternalistic attitude to the men and the industry among many owners—there are signs of improvement, and I should like to hope that we are moving towards a much more flexible era. If the I.R.C. gets in among the industry and brings about the kind of rationalisation which we want, presumably the situation could greatly improve. Manning ratios are laid down by agreement between the unions and the owners. I do not see why we should not leave it to the unions to ensure, as they are perfectly capable of ensuring, that before they drop the minimum manning from ten, eleven or twelve men per boat, depending on where it fishes, the safety factors have been properly considered and that there have been improvements made in the catching equipment,

and so on, to justify it. On balance, I am less than happy with the suggestion that wages should be excluded.
Turning to the question of finance, I unashamedly represent a sectional interest. This is a point which will come specifically from the Scottish Trawlers Federation. I am worried about the way in which it looks as though the new formula will work out for the Scottish trawling fleet. Take the results from the Scottish fleet in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966 and the percentage of total subsidy which went to that fleet and compare this with the proposed scheme of which the Government are thinking. During those years, the subsidy as a percentage of the total which would have been paid applying the proposed scheme would be less than it was under the old scheme. This is obviously an unsatisfactory situation because it suggests that over those three years—and this may not be representative; I am willing to listen to arguments about this matter—if the proposed arrangements had been operating the Scottish fleet would have done worse than it did under what everyone recognises as an ungenerous scheme which is now being abolished with the blowing of trumpets and great shouts of a new deal for the industry.
Taking the years from 1964 to 1967, if the proposed scheme had been applied in terms of proportion of total subsidy the Scottish trawling fleet would have received less than the percentage share of operating profits which it contributed. I do not say that these figures cannot be misleading and I should certainly not like to have to fight the case on 1967, when the Scottish fleet did not feel the same squeeze and did not have the same profits dip which the British fleet as a whole suffered. I should not expect a section of the fleet which represents only about one-sixth of the whole to get the proportion of the subsidy which exactly corresponds with the profit which it turned in in such a freak year. If we did, we would be claiming about 50 per cent. of the total subsidy available, which we all realise is hardly practicable.
But there is a serious case for saying that with the proposals, as they appear to be emerging from Government thinking, over the last few years the Scottish fleet would come badly out of the calculations. This is not a situation which


gives much cause for comfort in my part of the world. It is fair to point out that on the figures on which I am working—I do not think that they are widly inaccurate; they have been repeated in the Press—the Scottish fleet would have received just under £650,000 if the new subsidy scheme had applied last year. In 1962, it received £644,000. In other words, we would have been getting just about the same figure as in 1962.
Taking what seems to be the balanced and disputable argument put forward for the exclusion of wages and looking at what I tentatively suggest seem to be the indications of the financial results, I think that the Minister will accept that there is a case for considering again the results for the Scottish fleet. We shall all be looking very carefully at the scheme when it emerges, but there is certainly a need for reassurance on the points I have been discussing.

6.8 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The part of Scotland from which I come is not connected with the deep or middle water fishing parts of the industry, but I think that all those who have the interests of fishing at heart see the industry as a whole and do not particularly want to take a narrow view one way or the other, although they are naturally interested, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) was, in the particular problems which face the fleet fishing out of Aberdeen.
I was interested in the arguments which have been adduced about how the subsidy can be developed on an efficiency basis. Obviously, we do not want to use money to keep in being trawlers which are out of date in their fishing methods. But when it comes to such questions as how much bigger reward one boat out of two equal boats should receive, how does one judge efficiency? One thing which affects the industry so much is climatic conditions. Two equally efficient boats may go to sea and one may be fortunate in the weather which it strikes and the other unfortunate. One thing which governs how long boats have to remain at sea is to ensure a proper return, and sometimes perhaps the subsidy should be used to enable them to return rather than remain at sea. I am sure that the Minister will agree

that the weather is taken into account when agricultural subsidy payments are fixed. I do not know whether that can be done for fishing.
Something which is of particular interest to my part of the world is the fact that the Bill, in Clause 4, I think, makes provision for increasing the payments which are to be made to the White Fish Authority. Presumably these will apply equally to the inshore fleet as they do elsewhere. Therefore, the whole industry will bear these extra payments. This question is tied up with whether enough money is being spent on research and development.
According to the last report of the White Fish Authority for the year to 31st March, 1968, the general levy raised was £487,000. Out of that, the White Fish Authority paid £212,000 and the Exchequer £225,000 for research and development. The total that went into research and development during the year, excluding special items which occurred, was just under £440,000. On the face of it, it does not seem to me that this can possibly be enough to deal with the problems of developing an industry which has an important rôle in the import-saving context, to which the Minister referred.
One could equally say that unless the people who pay the White Fish Authority levy feel that they are getting value for money, there will at once be an outcry. I therefore wonder whether a sufficient amount of money can be raised in this way for the necessary research in the fishing industry, especially when one considers the many problems which have to be solved and the many new methods which are bound to come into use in future.
We get fishing legislation so rarely that unless one takes the opportunity when legislation is presented to cover all the possibilities, it is extremely difficult to make the alterations which, possibly, the Minister in charge at the time would like to make. That is why I am particularly interested in the provisions following Clause 4 of the Bill which deal with conservation and on which we must look to the future.
What one has read in some of the technical journals of the fishing industry,


and what has been said of the fears expressed recently at a conference in North America of what was termed the vacuum-cleaning fleets of Eastern Europe and the effect that they would have on fishing stocks, makes it all the more necessary that in the provisions of the Bill we cover the maximum number of points.
Perhaps I am ingenuous, but it seems odd to me that we can pass legislation allowing us to extend our jursidiction over what is known as the Continental Shelf in the North Sea so that we can conduct exploration and extract oil, and yet we appear to be unable to control fishing over the same area. I do not, of course, claim that simply because fishing has taken place in these areas by every nation from time immemorial, whereas exploration for gas is quite new, we have the right to say that we can extend each country's limits over the whole of its Continental Shelf area.
There must, however, be a need to see whether, by international agreement, something cannot be done to ensure that fishing is carried out in the interests of the countries which abut the ocean. The Minister appears to be shaking his head, but there is to my mind a certain aspect of piracy by people who are prepared willy nilly to scoop up all fish irrespective of where they come from. I feel that there is real need to try to reach international agreements to control and improve the prospects for fishing.
As to the work that needs to be done for research in inshore fishing, I am sure that there are many things that the White Fish Authority could do to extend the types of fishing that are used. It was only about eight or ten years ago when fishing for prawns around Scotland was considered to be of no economic value. The situation has changed and I suppose that that has now become one of the more valuable parts of the inshore fishing industry, and one has been pleased to see large catches landed recently in certain ports.
Other types of fishing are likely to be developed only if research and development is devoted to them. I am interested to see that experiments have been carried out in the West of Scotland in growing mussels on ropes. I was interested to read that the Japanese are carrying out

a breeding programme with a shellfish of which I have never heard but which is called an abalone, which, I believe, is known in the Channel Islands and can be extremely valuable.
Unless the White Fish Authority can help inshore fishing in the expansion of technical effort to improve the new types of fishing, we will not be likely to keep abreast of future development, in which there may be a change from what has amounted to fish hunting by boats going out to hunt the seas back to an attempt to farm the seas, so that by the planting and feeding of fish in certain areas we can reap a much richer harvest from the seas. I therefore give the Bill every welcome and I hope that it reaches the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: If I may deal briefly with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) concerning wages and the new proposed formula, I think that this is a matter which might be decided between the unions and the employers. This is an agreement which is concerned essentially with industrial relations.
I suggest, however, that some of the points made by my hon. Friend were based on doubtful propositions. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of manning scales, for example, but not the long hours—16 or 18 hours—which fishermen work. Therefore, before we introduce more efficient methods, we are entitled to ask what hours the fishermen work.
One could go through a whole number of factors to argue that while the point made by my hon. Friend may be of interest in Scotland the matter is one which should be left to the employers and the unions. The unions are most concerned in questions of manning and safety to work out what is best for the men.
I listened to the point made by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) concerning a minimum price scheme. It appears to me the whole object of the exercise of the formula as announced today is to lead to a minimum price scheme if we are to get a proper realisation of what should be the profit or return at the end of the day. Unless it can be based on a minimum price scheme, no matter


what tariff we have for E.F.T.A., we will be left almost completely to the vagaries of the market. It is important to have a sound basis on which to make our calculations.
When we last debated the fishing industry at the end of the last Session, I said that the time-scale problem of the industry covered four main points; first of all, the immediate subsidy to help the industry in the difficulties which it has faced. Secondly, I dealt with the question of reorganisation. I mentioned negotiations with E.F.T.A., the general social conditions under the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Holland-Martin Report. I am proud that it is the Government of the party to which I belong which has this year introduced a degree of security and social reform to the industry. That is shown by the announcement in the Gracious Speech that the Merchant Shipping Act is at last to be brought up to date and the fact that we have had the first part of the Holland-Martin Report.
Having said all that, however, I still think that we are, in a sense, debating Hamlet without mentioning the Prince. Until we have information on two main points—what is to be the effect of the 10 per cent. tariff on E.F.T.A. imports of frozen fillets and, secondly, what shape the industry is to take as a result of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation—we are no surer about what our industry is to be like. I welcome very much the introduction of the I.R.C. into this industry, and I have been somewhat disappointed to hear the sceptical comments made about it this afternoon. I think that the I.R.C. deserves the faith and credit which the Government had in it when they introduced it. However, I wonder whether, because of the rumours we have heard, because of the statements we have had, what is to happen to those three large firms. We should have an early statement. Is it true that they are not really interested in the marketing side? We really need a statement about the intentions of the I.R.C. in the industry. It is absolutely fundamental.
We have had today the basic outlines of how this scheme will work, and I know that negotiations are still going on with the unions and the employers about the scheme. These, I hope, will come to a speedy and suc-

cessful conclusion because it will be very important in trying to work out what the scheme will mean for the industry as a whole, in wages for crews, in particular, by which we shall judge the success and intentions of the Bill.
As it stands at the moment, I think both sides of the House are agreed that it is a follow-up to the morale booster which the Government gave to the industry when last July they announced their generous intention to increase grant. This has resulted in improvement in the morale of the industry, and has given it a greater sense of security, but the spur has now gone, and we want to see from the details of the scheme exactly where we are going and to make sure we are looking forward to a very prosperous future.
I have for a long time felt that the crisis which exists in the fishing industry has been 50 per cent. human and 50 per pent, economic but that the solution to it is 100 per cent. economic. I should like, therefore, to put a number of points to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer, if he will be so good, when he replies to the debate.
There is, first, the suspicion, voiced in particular by my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, that the operation of the new subsidy structure might to some extent have an effect the reverse of that intended, namely, that the subsidy, being based on profitability and efficiency, may encourage the retention of older trawlers, which are mainly conventional, and have less safe working conditions, but are landing wet fish and, therefore, are more profitable than the more modern freezer trawler which is not so profitable because of foreign competition.
We know that we have within the industry a two-tier structure—the modern vessels, and a part of the fleet which is very old. Figures have been mentioned today. What I am afraid of, and what my union is afraid of, is that, because of the way the new subsidy will work, it being based on fishing efficiency, we may have the retention of the older vessels for longer than we want to see bearing in mind our history over the year of landing wet fish. Therefore, I should like to know whether, under the new scheme, there may be a tailing off


of the way the subsidy is operated so as to encourage a more rapid replacement of the older vessels.
We have two main grounds for the subsidy. We have first the operating subsidy, and secondly the building subsidy. Both are very important, but we seem not to have the degree of flexibility in the subsidy structure one would like to see. We have only to look at the O.E.C.D. report on the various types of subsidies given in other countries, ranging from Canada with subsidies for new techniques, to Germany with loan interest reductions, to see how the different countries have different manners of applying their subsidy structures. I wonder if we ought not to look at the question of subsidy being applied both to improve efficiency immediately and also to provide for long-term developments which may take place.
One of the most important and most welcome things that the Government did when they broke fresh ground two years ago was, for the first time, to give allowances for the introduction of safety equipment in the building of ships, and a grant towards the improvement of ships from the safety point of view. Could not there be under this new subsidy on the operating side more incentive to include provision for safety?
I would like to think, because of the way the account had been worked out, on both the debit and credit side, that a tremendous contribution could be made to the social welfare of the crews, if part of the subsidy were paid not only for the time a ship is operating but also for the length of time it is in dock to give the crew a reasonable time at home in port.
Obviously, many of these suggestions will be tied up with the recommendations which the Holland-Martin Committee will be suggesting considering when looking at all the different facets of the industry, but these things are so interlocked that it is impossible to talk about the subsidy and not talk about working conditions, marketing, organisation of the industry, and so on. It is inevitable, but perhaps I cannot expect to get today all the answers I want. However, they ought to be borne in mind when looking at this problem.
There has always in the past been a suspicion that the Government subsidy has been used in part to diversify the interests of the trawling firms, apart from helping the industry. I would like to think that we shall have precise, accurate and greater control of the use of the subsidy to make sure that this suspicion is not substantiated.
Turning to the Bill itself, I have a couple of things I should like my hon. Friend to reply to if possible. In Clause 2 we have for the first time in a Bill a specific mention of fishmeal and other products, If the subsidy is used in the flexible and imaginative way it can be used both for the development of factory ships and for a tremendous amount of import saving. Thus this aspect of Clause 2 is particularly welcome. It is important that we try to cut down on imports of fishmeal. It has often surprised me that the Government have not done this sufficiently in the past, to encourage our own protection of fishmeal, when we hear so often of fish being thrown overboard because it is not edible or saleable on the English market and now when there has been development of cold storage. If we had adequate fishmeal factories at sea, then, when there are gluts of fish, the fish could be put into cold storage to be consumed later.
Clause 4, and I am a great believer in Clause 4, deals with the extra levy which the White Fish Authority is given power to impose. This is most important when one considers the future of the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board. For the life of me I cannot understand why it is necessary to have two Boards when they might be amalgamated. Each is complementary to the other. There could be savings in salaries and administration costs and also research could be undertaken jointly.
Leaving that as an aside, when the Select Committee considered the White Fish Authority it came to the conclusion that it could be either strengthened or scrapped. The Government have decided that it should be strengthened and have given it money for that purpose.
I should like to quote from the evidence which was given by the Transport and General Workers Union to the Holland-Martin Committee, and concerning the White Fish Authority. On page 8 of its evidence the union made this point,


which is important because it underlines the basic weakness which has always existed in the White Fish Authority:
Another cause for concern arises from evidence that where commercial, design and safety advances have resulted from research, often by the W.F.A., owners have been reluctant to co-operate in experiments and to implement successful projects. In correspondence with Sir Frederick Brundett of the W.F.A., we learned that an offer to experiment with transferring at sea, boxing and superchillmg has not been received very well by owners on Humberside. The offer from the W.F.A. was on favourable financial terms for experiments involving four or five vessels. We quote Sir Frederick's letter on other research projects:
'The above is not the only case where the results of the Authority's Research and Development Programme have not been implemented as fully or as rapidly as they could be; we believe for instance, and have some reason for doing so, that more general use of warp tension meters would help skippers to improve their performance. We agree, however, that it would help if there were better arrangements to instruct skippers in the use of instruments and techniques already developed. This would be more effective in the short-term than acceleration of the development of the simulator-trainer: in that project we have first to develop the tool and then find out if it is successful. We believe that a comparison of the performance of individuals and of company fleets shows that better training of skippers is one of the most immediate practical steps the industry could take.'
The White Fish Authority can do a tremendous amount of good, as it has done, in its research, but it has never had the power to see that its findings are adopted. This has been its major weakness, and is one reason why it has been regarded with such suspicion. I would like the White Fish Authority to be strengthened for the purpose of research, and the subsidy to be geared in part to the acceptance of recommendations on the fully carried out experiments of the White Fish Authority. Their recommendations should be listened to, to find out what advances can be made, and then the subsidy should be granted.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) that we should have a publicly owned fishing industry, or that at least part of the industry should be publicly owned. This would act as a pace setter for the rest of the industry. I made this point in the debate last July. It could work not only to develop the techniques which emerge from the White

Fish Authority and others but also to find new grounds and new methods. If the experimental side were separated from the commercial side and if the White Fish Authority were paid for the experimental side and the rest of the company existed on a commercial basis, then this would provide a pace setter for the industry and a way of finding out what improvements could be made.
Clause 5 deals with the adequate marking of fishing boats and their gear. Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Court of inquiry on the loss of the St. Romanus states:
In December, 1964, in the Formal Investigation into the loss of the SAREVA the Court recommended that consideration should be given to the question as to whether there should not be some better method of identifying liferafts. As a result of this recommendation various methods of identification had been discussed between the Board of Trade and representatives of trawler owners, but no satisfactory solution had been agreed, and as far as could be ascertained the matter had been dropped. In the opinion of the Court there is really no excuse for such delay. Since the loss of the ST. ROMANUS the Hull Mutual Insurance Society have put into operation an arrangement whereby each liferaft when serviced in addition to its number should bear the words 'Hull, England'. In this case once the correct number of the liferaft was known in Hull it was only a matter of minutes before it was identified as coming from the ST. ROMANUS. It is appreciated that the marking on the liferaft must be on the liferaft itself and not on the outer casing…The Court still feels that further consideration should be given to this matter, but the method adopted above is a good interim solution.
Will Clause 5 lead to the implementation of this recommendation of the Court? The Bill was, of course, drafted before the finding of the Court was published last week, but this is one thing which has come out of the tragedies which could be implemented very quickly in the Bill.
Reference is made in the penal Clauses to the confiscation of the catch and to penalties incurred in breaking the regulations. I realise that this is an international agreement and is traditional, but very often the wages of the offshore fishermen or ordinary fishermen are related to the size of the catch, and he will therefore lose a share of his wages. This would be acceptable if that person bore full responsibilities for selecting the area where the vessel fished or the type of gear used, but on many vessels this is


the responsibility of the captain. This could have particularly unfortunate results. I know that this is the traditional method, and it is sometimes argued that these people can make their point of view felt. Although this is probably more a Committee point, I felt I should mention it here because it is something which I shall seek to raise in Committee.
Recently Hull has given a general welcome to the Holland-Martin Interim Report, the proposal for the mother ship, the weather report and so on, but there are two points on this which are important. The Court of Inquiry into the St. Romanus recommended that wherever possible a ship should go to sea with a qualified radio operator. This is something which we all would like to see. I hope that the Board of Trade, which has generally accepted the interim report, will ensure that when a ship goes to sea without a fully qualified radio operator there is on board a person, other than the skipper, with a radio telephone certificate. This is an important interim matter which could be introduced quickly. Many men who sail as mates while holding a skipper's ticket hold that qualification, and this would be an added safeguard. The other point concerns the stowing of life rafts forward when members of the crew live in the fo'c's'le.
Much could be said on the subject of training, pay and recruitment of crews but perhaps we should wait for the full report of the Holland-Martin Committee.
I have in the past been critical of the owners. Therefore, I welcome the widely reported decision of Associated Fisheries to stop their skippers fishing north of Iceland from 1st December to 31st March, whilst stability tests are being carried out at the Admiralty yard at Yarrow. This is a most important decision, and a right decision, which is welcomed. It will put a financial strain on the firm and it is right that we should recognise this. I hope, this decision having been made by Associated Fisheries, that other firms in the industry will follow suit.
Mention was made in the Court Report on the Ross Cleveland of co-operation between all sides of industry on safety matters. Paragraph 28 of the Report states:
It is clear from the evidence adduced in these three inquiries, namely the St. Romanus,

the Ross Cleveland, and the Kingston Peridot, that it is of the utmost importance that the owners and builders of trawlers should cooperate wholeheartedly with the Board of Trade on questions affecting the safety of trawlers and that no one should delay or sit back when any question affecting the safety of trawlers and their crews at sea is raised and rely upon someone else to take the initiative. There was evidence of some such co-operation in the past, but there was also evidence that it had not always taken place. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Court it has been demonstrated that there is need for all parties in the fishing industry, owners and builders of trawlers and of skippers and crews, to play their part in making what must be a hazardous occupation as safe as possible.
I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House would agree that we need this type of co-operation extended and improved upon so that what is undoubtedly a hazardous occupation may become as safe as man can make it.
That brings me to what the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said about the de-icing experiments which are being conducted, at a cost of about £3,000 a vessel for the superstructure and bridge, and, for rigging, £40,000 for the whole fleet. We hope that there will be an early decision about it so that we may have the degree of safety in our fleet that we should all like to see. It has immediate effect and, in terms of the cost of replacement of vessels, entails expenditure of a very small amount.
The Bill is an important one for the people of my city. It is one which we welcome and which makes us very proud of our Government.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: I am conscious of the fact that this Bill is mainly but not entirely concerned with the deep-water fleets. There are Clauses in it, however, which can apply to the inshore and middle-water fleets, and I want to mention one or two aspects of the Bill which relate to the type of fishing carried on from my constituency. The aspects of the Bill which are relevant are, first, the White Fish Authority Levy and the increase which is anticipated; second, Clause 5 and the regulation of fishing operations; third, Clause 15 and the shellfish regulations; and, finally, Clause 16 and conservation.
We in Cornwall, with our fleet concerned predominantly with inshore fishing, recognise that the problems of the


deep-sea fleet are considerably greater than ours at the present time and that the Bill is needed badly for trawlers operating from Hull, Aberdeen and elsewhere. We recognise that yields have declined with intensive international competition and that deep-water trawlers have been shut out of many of their traditional fishing grounds as a result of the extensions of the fishing limits. We recognise, too, that imports have created a considerable problem for the deep-water fleets although, to some extent, they have done the same for the inshore boats. For example, the import of canned goods has had a serious effect on pilchard fishing, and we need some system of variable levies, on a long-term basis, to protect our fishing industry from imports of this kind. These items, and the substantial subsidies granted to our competitors, who are also our trading allies, have put our deep-water fleets in a serious position, with the result that the trawlers have been making little or no profit over many years.
For that reason, I welcome the Bill. It seeks to assist one of our greatest, most risky, most adventurous and at the same time most unrewarding industries—the fishing industry.
As I have said, compared with the problems of the deep-water fleet, those of the inshore and medium-water fleets are not so serious at the present time. Nevertheless, I suggest that the experience of the inshore boats has been uneven, and there are parts of the inshore fishing industry which are going through great difficulties.
I come then, to Clause 4 and the White Fish Levy. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the introduction of minimum prices would be most unpopular in the South-West. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of it. If the Levy is to be increased by a penny a stone, there will be tremendous opposition from fishermen in Newlyn and Brixham to any minimum price scheme affecting them. I can understand their fears. They fear that the tendency would be for market prices of fish to come down towards the minimum price; this would be catastrophic for the South-West. If there is any move towards a minimum price scheme, I hope that the South-West will be excluded from it.
In a way, I wish that the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs were present

because we recognise that the problems of the inshore and medium-water fleets are often social ones, while in purely financial terms they are small besides the problems of Kingston upon Hull. Nevertheless, the prosperity of inshore fishing is vitally important to communities and whole areas of the South-West and Scotland. For that reason, I would not like to think that the increased subsidies which are to go to the deep-water fleets will in any way reduce the amounts available for inshore boats. I realise that the inshore subsidies are calculated on a basis entirely different from those in this Bill. I hope that they will continue to be reviewed annually in the light of the widest economic criteria and that, as is the case now, the subsidy will not be subject to automatic reduction as the years go by.
In this connection, I am concerned primarily about any increase in the subsidy to deep-water trawlers having an effect on the total allocation to the fishing industry generally. I have no doubt that the Minister has great good will to the inshore fleets as well as to the deep-water fleets, but I am concerned lest the Treasury and other Government Departments might not at some time in the future lake away from the inshore fleets some of the increased allocation now to go to the deep-water fleets. The Minister will be aware of the widespread anger and concern recently when the inshore subsidy was cut. It arose in the changeover from stonage rates to daily rates, and I know of several inshore boats which suffered cuts of up to 50 per cent. in their subsidies as a result.
Although the inshore fleets have the great advantage of landing fresh fish and, in that sense, are not so concerned with imports as the deep-water fleets, nevertheless they have great problems which offset their advantages. First, their transport costs are higher, and they have been increased substantially by taxes on commercial vehicles and now by the terms of the Transport Act. Second, there is little scope for freight rebates, because inshore ports have not the same bulk as Aberdeen and Kingston upon Hull and, therefore, cannot get the same concessions on the railways as deep-water ports are able to obtain. Third, the small amount of capital possessed by most inshore fishermen and the narrow


margins on which they operate make them very vulnerable to misfortune, whether it be damage to their boats or their gear.
I do not need to stress to the Parliamentary Secretary the vast importance in the west country of our shell fisheries. They stretch in my constituency along a coastline of up to 100 miles. It is due to the shellfish industry that a great number of communities are able to survive and to maintain an adequate living until the summer months come round, when many hon. Members and other visitors descend on Cadgwith, the Lizard and other coves and villages. The livelihood of these places is, to some extent, kept going during the year by the shellfishing industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that, over many years, we have had a very great controversy over free diving for shellfish; and that this activity still continues. I have never been one of those who wished to see regulations introduced prohibiting underwater fishing for sport and recreation, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) agrees with me on that point. What I should like to see is a limit, but not a ban, put on professional skin-diving for crayfish.
A good diver can take between £200 or £300 a week diving for crayfish in the season. I do not grudge him that return, because his is a tough and dangerous occupation, but I, and everyone connected with the industry down there, believe that one cannot have fishing on this scale without there being repercussions on the stocks. No one would claim that stocks of shellfish are being completely depleted, but one can claim that, although the stocks are not being extinguished altogether, the effect is to reduce below an adequate level the standard of living of the many communities which depend on shellfishing for their livelihood. This is a serious problem, and I wish that the Ministry would recognise it. This controversy has gone on for many years without progress being made.

Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the main club dealing with skin-diving—the British Sub-Aqua Club—supports the view that there should be a limitation, but no banning?

Mr. Nott: I am aware that the British Sub-Aqua Club support the need for some regulation in this connection.
I mention this matter because, although the Minister could have dealt with it in another Bill, there are Clauses in this Bill dealing with conservation, and I think that he could have taken power to make regulations for lobster, crab and crayfish fishing. That power would have come logically within this Bill. In addition, the Measure contains no power to regulate the size of shellfish that may be taken from the fishery limits in the British Isles.
I asked the Ministry this morning whether, in Clause 16, the description "seafish" could be so defined as to include shellfish. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the area around Cornwall and Devon is a very prolific shellfishing ground for the French, and it would have been quite logical to broaden the definition in Clause 16 so as to include shellfish as well as seafish. In my part of the world, the crayfish is often quite a large fish, but there are also some very small crayfish caught which are the breeding stocks of the future. These crayfish are mainly consumed in France—they are hardly eaten here at all; 90 per cent. of them are exported to France which takes them from Newlyn and other harbours. I believe that the definition should be widened to include these shellfish.
I appeal also for the inclusion of shellfish in the white fish subsidy. A crab or a lobster is now no more of a luxury than a turbot or a sole, which now receives a subsidy, and in social terms the importance of the shellfish industry to this area is immense. How much evidence, and what kind of evidence, does the Minister require us to provide to enable him to consider the point again?
I believe that, in logic, the Bill should have given some formal powers to local sea fisheries committees, which are trying to regulate fishing on the spot. These bodies include representatives of practising fishermen, who know their business. The committees could do a great deal to assist the Minister and the Ministry in helping to regulate some of the matters set out in the Bill. I wonder whether Whitehall is, perhaps, a little over-jealous of its powers, some of which could well


be delegated to local sea fisheries committees which are able to implement regulations and help the sea fisheries officers in their task.
The local position of these committees could be regularised by the granting to them of the status of corporate bodies which, for legal reasons, would be enormously helpful. Again, it would be a great help if these committees were empowered to establish reserve funds for capital expenditure and for repairs and renewals. The present position is that they are financed by a precept on local authorities but are not permitted to set aside any part of the precept to reserves for the purchase of office accommodation or capital equipment.
The sea fisheries committees could be empowered to contribute to local lights, fog signals and other navigational aids for the benefit of inshore fishermen, and also for the benefit of medium water fishermen of other nations. Further, why cannot these committees spend money on removing obstructions from inshore fishing grounds? That point must come within the context of such a Bill as this, because what to us are inshore fishing grounds are deep water fishing grounds to other nations and there would be some reciprocity in this respect.
I believe that the local fisheries committees should have powers to institute licensing systems to control the taking of shellfish, just as I have suggested that the Minister should include such powers for himself in this Bill.
Why does not this Bill increase the statutory maximum penalties for infringement of local sea fisheries committees' byelaws? The present maximum penalty is £50 for a first offence or £100 for any subsequent offence, except where a vessel is wrongly used, when a second offence may involve a fine of £150. It would be reasonable to empower these committees, which help the policing of our waters, to impose a fine of substance upon a foreign vessel caught infringing our rights, rather than having these purely nominal fines of £50, £100 and £150.
Finally may I ask the Minister would the subsidy given in Clause 2 to fish products be available also for the establishment of a fish meal plant which would be used by inshore fishing boats? I know that this Bill is predominantly meant for

the deep water fleet, but presumably the powers to grant subsidies for fish products could also be used for the establishment of a meal plant in Cornwall for the inshore boats. The pilchard fisheries were once vitally important to Cornwall's economy, but they are now going through very difficult times and, although there are still plenty of pilchards there, the market for them is dwindling. It is taken up with imports from other countries. There is an ever-increasing need for a processing plant to can and cure pilchards in the South-West and also to take all the surplus fish and offal for reduction to oil and meal. I admit that Clause 2 is mainly related to deep-water fisheries, but could it not be used to provide a subsidy for such a processing plant?
This Bill is primarily concerned with the deep-water fleet, and we welcome it in the South-West, but here the Minister has an opportunity to take some powers which we have been pressing him to take for months and sometimes years. They could easily be slipped into this legislation as it goes through the House and I trust that he will do this for our benefit.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: One thing which characterises our debates on fishing is the problem of distinguishing between short-and long-term improvements in Government policy towards the fishing industry. The kinds of aid which can be given to the industry we discuss on the one hand in the context of short-term policy to get the industry through a difficult period and out of its present problems, and on the other hand, with a view to helping its long-term economic position.
It was hoped that when the previous scheme was accepted the industry would be able to stand on its own feet. Now, by this Bill, the Minister is setting up a scheme whereby we hope that the industry will reach the stage at which it can stand on its own feet. Unfortunately, over the last few years with these schemes we do not seem to have got much further forward in putting the industry on a sound footing. I am sure that it is the aim of all of us who have the interests of the industry at heart to see that it can stand on its own without the need for schemes and subsidies of this sort. We


should like to see an economic climate in which the industry can prosper with its own resources. One may use the comparison with the agricultural industry. Most farmers would like their industry to be able to stand on its own feet and to get a proper return on capital to cover operating costs without the constant need to go to the Government for a major part of its income.
That is why it is so important to view this Bill, not only in the narrow context of the fishing industry itself, but in the whole context of the Government's food policy. The Minister is discussing in the Department and with the Government the whole question of Government policy in relation to agriculture, whether there should be greater dependence on import control and the possibility, I understand, of going on to a levy system which would have the effect of raising the price of food. That would have immediate repercussions on the fishing industry. If the price of food were raised, which is a critical matter in discussion of a levy system on imports in relation to agriculture, automatically the price of fish would rise with the rise in the price of meat.
For this reason it is important that when we are discussing the fishing industry we should know more of what is in the mind of the Government and of the Minister about food policy generally. If there were a change in agriculture policy we could create prices for fish which would help to extinguish the subsidies which we are now discussing. This would be one way in which the industry might be able to earn from the market sufficient to cover operating costs and to give a reasonable profit and a reasonable return on capital. I do not know whether the Minister intends to give us an inkling of his thinking on this tonight, but we know that he is considering the report of the "Little Neddy" which has important implications for this subject.
We look forward to hearing the Minister's thoughts on this subject before the Bill has passed through Committee. Then we shall be much better able to assess the future of the fishing industry, with reference to the return it can hope to earn from the fish sold in British markets. This is important not only with reference to the long-term thinking of the

Government, but, as the Minister admitted this afternoon, we have to face the question of a levy to combat dumping by other countries. The Minister referred to a 10 per cent. subsidy with reference to fish fillets. We have to live with this problem in relation to fish and agricultural products. Therefore, we should like to know about the Minister's thinking in terms of import control and whether he intends to put a higher duty on some of the foodstuffs brought into the country.
I hope that—perhaps not this afternoon, but certainly in Committee—we shall hear more about the Minister's long-term thinking on food policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate is not on food policy, but on fish food.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With every respect, Mr. Speaker, I am relating this to the Bill which is before us. If we could know what the Minister's policy is for food that could have a big bearing on the question of the kind and size of subsidy which the fish industry will need. It would also have a considerable bearing on whether we think the proposals put before us can help the industry in the long term to be put on a more secure footing. I hope that we shall be given some indication of where the Government stand in relation to this problem.
Taking the narrow view of the industry itself, everything in this Bill in relation to the subsidies the Minister proposes follows on the question of the value-added formula. This factor is absolutely critical. The Minister, quite rightly, is trying to encourage the efficiency of the industry. That is in its long-term interests. I apologise if I did not follow him absolutely. I was not sure precisely where depreciation costs come into the value-added formula. Are they taken as part of the operating costs and therefore taken into account before value-added is considered, or are they taken into account in the residual part with wages and profits to management and so on?
This is important because, if depreciation is taken into account in the operating costs, that will lower the value-added for more modern boats. They have a higher depreciation and this will increase their operating costs and reduce the value-added and reduce their qualification for subsidy. I am sure that it is in our


interest to encourage the efficiency of the industry and we must be absolutely clear on which side of the equation depreciation charges come. Only in that way can we be certain that modernisation, which we all want to help, gives the encouragement to the industry which we all want to see. We shall not get modernisation in the fishing fleet unless it has a good return on capital and unless we ensure that those sections which are forward-looking and prepared to experiment and to put money into new techniques are not penalised in any way.
On a slightly more general point, I should be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary exactly what discussions the Government have had with the Scottish Trawlers' Federation on the working out of the formula. I should like to know also when the Government hope to get agreement about it. The Minister said earlier that he was not sure when agreement would be reached and when he would be able to give us a better indication of the details of the scheme. Scottish Members on both sides have pressed strongly for an absolute assurance that Scottish interests have been consulted. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) went into this in detail. I support his strongly expressed hope that the Scottish fleet will not suffer either in relation to the United Kingdom fleet or in relation to the situation it enjoyed previously.
There are two specific questions to which I would like answers. First, we know now that the subsidy is to be paid on the basis of returns of individual boats. I can understand that this will involve much paper work and administration in calculating exactly what the returns are. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", states:
No additional administrative expenditure is expected in paying subsidies under the new scheme for the deep-sea fleet.
I should like that to be expanded upon. Basing the subsidy on individual boats could make more administrative work. Why do the Government think that no additional administrative work will be involved?
My second question arises on Clause 13. which deals with the compensation which a court can order a convicted

person to pay to an injured party. The limit of compensation has been fixed at £400. Why has this sum been selected? The kind of offence that could be committed, involving gear and other things, could result in damage or injury to a much greater extent than £400.
Finally, I had intended to say something about the inshore fishing industry and also about the shellfish industry. All the points I had intended to mention have already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I support everything my hon. Friend said. I hope that in the passage of the Bill we do not forget the interests of the inshore industry, which is very important in Scotland as it is in the South-West of England, as indeed is the shellfish industry—the fastest growing section of the industry in Scotland.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: We have had a debate which I think in Scotland we would describe as "douce" on an industry which, though not very large, is an extremely important one. It is not only important economically as a potential saver of imports. Goodness knows that is important today. It is important as a supplier of protein and as a very substantial instrument of employment in many areas. It is an industry which contains some of the staunchest spirits in Britain. It would need to have had these spirits in view of some of the slings and arrows which it has had to endure. One has only to recall the state of things in Hull and Grimsby on a visit which hon. Members on both sides of the House paid last year to know that.
What interests me is the similarity of the situation tonight to that which existed on 14th November, 1961, almost precisely seven years ago. At that time the industry was in very severe difficulties and facing a very grave situation. I can well recall the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) emphasising the considerable losses which had been made then by the middle water fleet.
Developing this argument of similarity, I remind the House that last year the Scottish trawling fleet, if allowance was made for depreciation even at the wholly unrealistic rate of 6⅔ per cent., made a loss of over £100,000, a loss which


was turned into profit only by the injection of £206,000 of subsidy. Not one port from which trawlers operate in Great Britain, not even a single section of the fleet using any one of those ports, was able to show a profit in 1967 after it had deducted that modest and artificial 6⅔ per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) told the House, averaged over the whole fleet the loss on every vessel was over £18 a day.
The second similarity is that seven years ago the House decided on an extremely radical change of policy from what had existed up to that date. Precisely the same holds good tonight. It is both frustrating and fruitless to go into the reasons for having to make the change. Hon. Members opposite have claimed, and they claimed at the time, that the Fleck policy, as it has become known, was wrong and never could work. One cannot in all fairness bring a charge against right hon. and hon. Members opposite of being wise after the event, because the misgivings then were expressed in the debate on that night by the hon. Member for Leith and by the present Leader of the House.
Let it not be forgotten that that policy was based on a considerable amount of thought and consideration to very difficult problems, given by the late Lord Fleck and his Committee, and that those considerations received the approval of what one might call the experts—the British Trawlers' Federation. Would Lord Fleck have made those recommendations, would the B.T.F. have agreed with them, if they could have seen ahead to the invasion of this country by the frozen fillet and other imports, to the steep rise that has taken place in interest rates, to an increase of £900 per vessel in insurance premiums, and to the surcharge on fuel not many years ago which had the effect of virtually wiping out the profit made by a vessel? It is impossible to say for certain what they would have done, but I should have thought that it was unlikely.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, the Minister said that the details of the new scheme were still being discussed. Will he confirm that the principles have been broadly accepted—

I could not put it wider than that—principles, incidentally, which are not described in the Bill but which were outlined to the House by the right hon. Gentleman before we rose in July and explained in more detail today? Have they been broadly accepted by both the Trawler Federations? I take it that discussions have been held separately with each body.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The principle of a subsidy geared to efficiency has been accepted by the industry and welcomed by it. It is the detail which has to be worked out now.

Mr. Stodart: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance.
The other similarity between tonight and that night seven years ago is the voicing of misgivings by Opposition spokesmen. At that time, misgivings were expressed by the hon. Member for Leith and by the present Leader of the House. Tonight, it is only right that we on this side should put on record the reservations which we have.
It seems to me that just about the only difference between the background to this debate and that of seven years ago, apart from the basing of proposals then on all the thought and consideration which had been given to the problem by the Fleck Committee, is that the details of the policy then appeared in the Bill whereas on this occasion we are at a disadvantage in that, until the scheme is published, we cannot constructively give approval or otherwise to what the Minister has in mind.
I am sure that much thought has been devoted to the new principle of giving the most subsidy to those who do best. But none of the details appear in the Bill, whereas at the time of our debates on the 1962 Act the correspondence between the Government and the industry was put in the Library for all to see, setting out the manner by which aid was to be given. The starting rates of subsidy on the different vessels were all agreed and given to the House, the percentage reduction rates were set out in the Bill, and we knew precisely what we were talking about. We are given nothing tonight except references to the scheme which the Bill enables the Minister to make.
I have a fairly long experience of subsidies, and my views on subsidy are by


no means universally shared in farming circles. In my view, it is good in principle to link Government aid to productivity. Therefore, if subsidies are to be given to the fishing industry, and if this is the way in which it is proposed to carry the industry along, I do not quarrel with the principle of the Government's plans. But I am by no means convinced that this is the right way, and I am certain that the Government's plans would not work as they want them to work if imports, most of them heavily subsidised, were allowed to carry on flooding in.
Unless the Government can steel themselves to control imports effectively, the same will happen with the fishing subsidies as has happened with some farming subsidies: the amount paid in subsidy may rise but the incomes of those for whom the subsidy is intended will fall.
Neither the old system of subsidies nor the new one can possibly achieve its objective so long as the amount of fish sent for making into meal rockets upwards as it has done this year—a fourfold increase at Hull and tenfold at Grimsby. There is no hope for the right hon. Gentleman's new ideas so long as imports are allowed to rise as they have—18 per cent. in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period a year ago.
The right hon. Gentleman will remind me, no doubt—I am surprised that he has not done so already, and I congratulate him on his tolerance—of the 10 per cent. duty on frozen fillets which he announced today. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) thinks that this is a move in the right direction. Broadly, I agree, but I am by no means convinced that it is adequate. For instance, what is to stop a country which is at present sending imports to us merely subsidising further by 10 per cent., paying the 10 per cent. duty, and coming back precisely to where we are now?
I must say that the right hon. Gentleman chose a slightly unusual method for announcing an important step of this kind. I mean no discourtesy to him, but one would expect an announcement about an import duty to be made by the President of the Board of Trade. Second, will he tell us whether the action which

he has taken is unilateral, or has it been taken within the framework of the E.F.T.A.? Is he satisfied that the action which he has announced is not in breach of our E.F.T.A. agreements? We ought to have that matter squarely on the record.
Both hon. Gentlemen opposite who come from Hull have said that the prospect of a change in the subsidy system has acted as a tonic to the industry—either a tonic or a spur, which comes to much the same. I beg leave to doubt that it has done that. What is still lacking in the industry is confidence. Until we see the scheme, trawler owners do not know what they will receive, and they are extremely hesitant to invest because they have not the faintest idea of what is likely to come to them.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that confidence can only be expressed by the owners. The workers in the industry have an important place in our considerations, and the unions have warmly welcomed the Government's proposals.

Mr. Stodart: The giving of a welcome does not necessarily mean that confidence is there as well. All I am quarrelling with is the suggestion that the industry is bursting with confidence. I am a little doubtful about it.
We now know a little of the detail of how the subsidy is to be calculated, but it is a complicated subject and it would be absurd for me to try to comment on it or criticise it now before we see the scheme in black and white.

Mr. James Johnson: Has not Mr. Austen Laing, the spokesman for the B.T.F., warmly welcomed the proposal and said that it is a step forward? If that is not an expression of some confidence—giving a welcome and recognising it as a step forward in the industry—I do not know what confidence is.

Mr. Stodart: I have a suspicion that Mr. Austen Laing's confidence would probably depend on the absolute certainty that, in addition to the scheme, imports would be firmly controlled. We are by no means certain of this, even with a 10 per cent. duty, for the reasons I have given.
A point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde rang a bell


in my ear. He spoke about the uncertainties of markets, of fish landing on a good market and then landing on a bad market. Knowing the uncertainty of selling fatstock, when one makes shillings per cwt. more if one is number five in the draw as compared with being number 15, I can understand his feelings.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) raised the question, which I wish to emphasise, of our being satisfied that the trawler fleet in Scotland will receive a proportion of the new subsidy equivalent to its share in the profits made by the British fleet. It is of the utmost importance that it should, because, although I fully appreciate the importance of a profitable fishing industry to Hull, Grimsby and other English ports, there would be a catastrophic effect on Aberdeen or Granton if the industry there went into a severe decline. This was a point which the right hon. Gentleman made early in his speech.
I should like to say something about the position of the inshore fleet. No debate on fishing would be complete without a mention of pilchards, and normally we get it. I could understand the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I have refreshed my memory on what the Minister said on 8th July, when he pointed out that the inshore fleet had done much better than the trawler fleet, but that to encourage expansion subsidies would be maintained during the coming year. He added:
There is no question of cutting subsidies for the inshore fleet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July. 1968; Vol. 768, c. 58.]
The right hon. Gentleman should leave no ambiguity on that point. I presume that he meant that there was no intention of cutting them in the coming year, because that was the context of the previous sentence. He knows very well that there was no timetable similar to that laid down for trawlers suggested by the Fleck Committee or included in the 1962 Act. But percentage cuts in operating subsidies have been made, and there have been very severe ones since 1964. If they were to continue, the inshore fleet

would quickly find itself at a considerable disadvantage as compared with the trawlers.
I have said that if the Government introduce legislation to help the fishing industry out of its difficulties we should do nothing to delay its progress. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has also said that, and it is an assurance that I willingly repeat. If the Ministers will help us in Committee, for example, by letting us have a foolscap draft of what they have in mind, and if they realise that we are genuinely anxious to help the industry and that our questions and Amendments have that object in view, I am sure that we shall make progress. I presume that the Committee would probably start a week on Tuesday. If the right hon. Gentleman found it difficult to let us have a draft next week, I give an assurance that if the Committee were put off for a week we should try to make up time, as a reward for his consideration in letting us have the scheme, which is, after all, the basis of the Bill.
I realise that in what I have said about being anxious to be of assistance I may well incur the displeasure of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), because I recall his saying that he was not a bit happy when a bipartisan approach was made, even to fishing problems. But I rather think, judging from what he said today, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) would support my qualified welcome to the Bill and sincerely hopes that it will work. I have put fairly and squarely on the record my misgivings, which are largely confined to whether the control of imports announced by the Minister today is adequate. But we certainly hope that the Government's action will be for the benefit of an industry whose interests all hon. Members have at heart.

7.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scot-Sand (Mr. Norman Buchan): Never before have I heard a qualified welcome given in such sour tones. Some of the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was a little at variance with the general welcome given to the Bill from both sides of the House. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)


complains about bipartisanship, he is usually helped by the hon. Gentleman, who ensures that it does not occur.
The hon. Gentleman said that the main difference between the Bill and the Fleck policy was that we were placing the Opposition at a disadvantage, because we did not have the full details in the Bill. I believe that the main difference between this and the 1962 Bill is that though the then Government had the details in the Bill what it contained was progressive reductions, while we are concerned with strengthening the position of the fishing industry over the next five years by giving a guarantee of a subsidy related to earnings. The reason that the scheme is not in the Bill is that it is important that we discuss as fully as possible what form it should finally take, against the background of the necessity for speed. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would accept that. We want to introduce the scheme as quickly as possible, and the simplest way is to get the Bill through.
The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous when he suggests that he does not have some notion of the nature of the discussions going on with the trawler-men, because examples have been published. There was a headline in The Times of 31st October saying, "Trawler-men welcome Government backing". I do not know what hon. Members opposite mean when they say that though something has been welcomed, that does not necessarily mean that there is confidence. The report underneath that heading says:
The new Bill to give continued support to the deep sea fishing industry referred to in the Queen's Speech yesterday, was warmly welcomed by the British Trawlers' Federation last night. Austen Laing, director of the Federation, said the continuing subsidy and the general approach to the problems of the industry were appreciated and would probably contribute to re-structuring.
The report outlined some of the points the Federation seems to think we have been discussing. In view of that and the statements by my right hon. Friend outlining the basic approach, based on efficiency and the concept of added value, the hon. Gentleman is disingenuous to say that there is no inkling of what the scheme may eventually contain.
There has been a general acceptance by both the British Trawler Federation and the Scottish Trawler Federation that the

new subsidy proposal should be linked to efficiency. I was surprised that someone thought that Aberdeen might have missed out. Aberdeen trawler-men and the Scottish Trawler Federation made quite sure that their points of view were made known by meeting me in Edinburgh.

Mr. Stodart: It is not disingenuousness on my part. I returned to this country only on Monday. I could not get The Times and its report of the Queen's Speech abroad. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the welcome to which he referred has not been conditioned by the control of imports, to which he did not refer.

Mr. Buchan: Not in The Times. I am sorry, but I cannot keep up with the hon. Gentleman's perambulations in various parts. I would, however, refer him to that issue of The Times, which was dated 31st October.
One of the great pleasures about fishing debates is that, no matter what Order or Bill is before us, we generally have a very thorough investigation of the whole industry. I may have to stray a little out of the context of the Bill in order to deal with some of the points raised. This is what gives such a debate its own peculiar pleasure and salty flavour.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker loves the fishing industry, but he has noted the warning.

Mr. Buchan: That was a self-imposed order. I will do my best, Mr. Speaker, to remain in order. As to whether or not we give an additional outline of the draft scheme in advance, I am advised that we cannot bring the scheme forward until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. We cannot put it before Parliament for an affirmative Resolution until then. But this is not a consideration that prevents us from saying that we will go into the scheme. We are considering a whole number of details with the industry, and when they are settled we will consider the possibility of making an announcement to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and others.
Subjects raised in the discussion were the basic formula and the global sum, and I have been asked about the effect of the new level of subsidy on crews' earnings. Subsidy earnings are at present


taken into account by means of a formula agreed between the parties in the industry for calculating the earnings of the voyage which qualify for poundage. Under the new arrangement subsidy earnings will not be related directly to particular voyages. It will be a matter for negotiation within the industry as to the proportion that the subsidy will bear to gross earnings. When the subsidy earnings will be paid is again a matter for negotiation between the parties.
The point was raised as to the effects of this on the Scottish trawler position. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, in his usual extremely skilful fashion, has put a careful slide-rule over the figures for the past. He suggests that if the formula had been in use over the years 1964 to 1966 the Scottish deep sea fleet would have had less aid than in historical fact it had under the 1962 Act. This is marginally true. However, it is based on certain assumptions and we do not accept the assumptions. One is that the history of 1964 to 1966 would be repeated exactly. The distribution formula will have the effect suggested only if the Scottish deep sea fleet is in future and in general less successful in producing the value added that we have been talking about, and, incidentally if it is more profitable. One of the bases of the argument is that it will be more efficient. If it is more efficient it will benefit and not lose by this scheme. So it does not seem that my hon. Friend need have anxiety on that score. The more efficient the fleet is the better it will do.

Mr. Dewar: On the basis of figures that I have, in 1967, which was by far the most successful year in comparative terms, the Scottish trawler fleet produced 49 per cent. of the total profit of the British fleet, but the gap between what it got as a proportion of the subsidy and what it contributed as a proportion of operating profit widened. So I am not happy when my hon. Friend says that the better it does the more it will receive.

Mr. Buchan: I know the point, and I know that my hon. Friend is not happy about it, but it is based on the conditions as they existed then and other factors which have been taken into consideration. I think that the comparative profit shown by that section of the fleet

will be continued in the future and that it will benefit from the new basis.
That having been said, the Federation has its own ideas, and very powerfully puts them forward, as to how the money should be distributed. We shall be giving full consideration to the views of the industry, including those of the Scottish Trawler Federation, before deciding what should be put in the statutory scheme. I do not think that hon. Members or the industry will want to interfere with this concept of full discussion and careful attention to the views expressed.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman has said that the proposals have been welcomed by the British Trawler Federation. Have they been welcomed by the Scottish Trawler Federation?

Mr. Buchan: The Scottish Trawler Federation is very happy that the scheme should be based upon efficiency because it believes, correctly, that it is very efficient. That is not to say that it has not put forward in detail bases on which the formula should be calculated slightly different from those put forward by other sections of the industry and the Government in discussion. That is true, but by and large it accepts that the scheme should be based on efficiency. What it is questioning are some of the points that might be suggested by others for a criterion of efficiency.
Some of my hon. Friends have wondered whether the wage aspect would be affected by the criterion. We can see the reason for the exclusion of a criterion because of its effect on safety factors or because we do not want to have a written-in squeeze upon wages. If there is an increase in wage costs, it will decrease the operating profits by the amount of that increase. So the two will balance, and the value-added sum which draws the subsidy will be the same. It will not affect the entitlement of an individual vessel. The division of subsidy as between profits retained by the company and crew earnings is a matter for negotiation between the two parties.
Reference was made to the inshore fleet. It is not of itself covered by this scheme, but I repeat the assurance that the new subsidy arrangements will not affect the inshore and herring fleets. We announced on 15th May that the operating subsidies for the fleets which


are not subject to automatic reduction would continue to be reviewed annually in the light of their profitability. In the review the rates of subsidy were left unchanged.
The subject of the White Fish Authority was raised both for praise and for question. This is why we have introduced an allowance for levy increase in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) raised the question of research expenditure. This is one reason why we want to allow the White Fish Authority to raise more money in this way. The Authority has built up a substantial research and development programme the cost of which is at present shared about 50-50 between the Authority and the Treasury. It is clear that there is still a rôle for the White Fish Authority to play in this respect.
I am aware of the references that were made to the White Fish Authority in the report of the Fisheries Sub-Committee of the Select Committee. The Sub-Committee was completely concerned with the English and Welsh side, and suggested that there should be a further inquiry.
We are ready to consider any further proposal by the Select Committee. I do not want to prejudge such an inquiry but I am satisfied that the Authority has a useful function to perform. That function is shared, both in costs and research, by the Government. We sometimes forget how much additional money the Government put into research expenditure. In this case, it is about £1½ million a year. We have research stations at Torry and elsewhere. A fishery research vessel was launched this year and another is under construction—in a Scottish yard, I am pleased to say—for the Ministry of Agriculture.
Few of the questions raised in debate seem to have been related to the Bill and, as I tried to explain to Mr. Speaker, I am in some difficulty in answering them while trying to stick closely to the Bill. I agree that there is no mention of the minimum price scheme in the Bill but perhaps that is an accident of drafting. It has certainly been very much discussed today.
It will fall to my right hon. Friends to consider any scheme submitted by the

Authority and also any objections. It would be wrong for me to comment further now, but if the Authority wishes us to consider such a scheme, we will do so. However, it is worth remembering that it is not the unanimous view in the industry that such a scheme would be correct or viable. There is still opposition to it, and not only on the financial implication.
Then there is the question of frozen fillet import duties. I thought that this was raised with a little touch of sourness. My right hon. Friend makes a welcome announcement. We have been hammered on the subject for several months. The last time I spoke about fishing in this House I was hammered because I could not announce an import duty. I have been asked why it was announced in this way today in the House. It was because we wanted to tell the House and the nation the decision when it was taken and surely the House of Commons is the proper place for that.
I was also asked why it should have been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food instead of by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade but, frankly, I do not think that that is a very important matter. The issue is, after all, of importance mainly to the fishing industry and it will surely have been brought more sharply to the attention of those concerned by the fact that it was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I have been asked whether the 10 per cent. duty is to be on all fish or on frozen fillets or on imports in excess of 24,000 tons. The duty is to be on frozen fillets. In effect, we shall be going back to the position as it was before these fillets were bracketed with industrial imports in the original E.F.T.A. Agreement under Article 59.

Dame Irene Ward: There has been much detail about these frozen fillets. For the knowledge of the general public, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much increase per fillet will accrue from the 10 per cent. import duty?

Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Lady mean per individual fillet?

Dame Irene Ward: Yes.

Mr. Buchan: Presumably it would be 10 per cent. of the retail cost, the price of the fillet would be arrived at by dividing by the number of fillets the total cost of selling these fillets.

Dame Irene Ward: But it must have been properly worked out to see whether it will really protect our fishing industry. I do not know whether it will protect it unless I know what the additional cost on the foreign individual frozen fillet is going to be.

Mr. Buchan: The price is, of course, 10 per cent. or 2s. in the £. Perhaps that helps the hon. Lady. The point here centres on the figure of 24,000 tons, and whether the landings from abroad go over that figure.

Dame Irene Ward: It is a muddle.

Mr. Buchan: It is not really a muddle. It is part of our relationship with E.F.T.A. and was fully discussed within the E.F.T.A. machinery.
It is difficult to predict the effect which the tariff will have in reducing imports. Naturally, the imports fluctuate from month to month and a large proportion are contracted for in advance. It will take some time before the effects of the new tariff are fully apparent and we shall keep the position under continuous review to see whether further action is needed.
Several hon. Members asked about longer-term measures to control unfair imports. We are very conscious of this whole general problem. As a trading nation, we do not move lightly into this kind of decision and we certainly did not do so in the case of frozen fillets. We must continually review this within the context of international trade.
Hon. Members have raised the case of the two Scottish skippers who were convicted of illegal fishing within the Isle of Man three mile fishery limit. The Isle of Man byelaw of 1965 prohibits fishing by vessels over 50 ft. within the three mile limit. There is little difference in principle between this byelaw and those we operate for waters off the Scottish coast. The Isle of Man authorities have not rigidly enforced the byelaw until recently but this does not mean that they were not entitled to do so. They gave ample warning that it would be enforced. I do not want to go into this matter more

deeply but I can give the welcome news that, despite the convictions, the two boats concerned have had a very successful season—in Isle of Man waters.
The question of trawler safety was an essential part of the debate. Hon. Members will have seen the decision announced by one large company, Associated Fisheries, to instruct skippers not to fish off the North of Iceland in the winter months. I understand that other companies are considering similar instructions.

Mr. Wall: Was this a blanket decision that they would not fish or that they would not fish until they had had stability tests?

Mr. Buchan: I need notice of that question, which raises an important point, and I will look into it. But this decision reflects the management's concern for the: safety of the crews. It has been taken as a result of the Court of Inquiry into the tragic loss of three trawlers last winter. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced that we accept the interim Report of the Court of Inquiry into trawler safety, in which it recommended that a weather advisory ship should be provided off the North of Iceland on an experimental basis. Arangements are in hand to carry out that recommendation.
In the circumstances, it will be necessary for my right hon. Friend to consider whether any change in the arrangements needs to be made and this he is doing urgently. It is not possible for me to say more now about these more recent developments, except that I will take note of the points put forward by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and others about technical developments and their possible cost, and I shall ensure that these points are brought to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade.
I was asked whether the new scheme will enable older vessels to be more profitable. There will be no discrimination between classes of vessels but, of course, older vessels are in general less profitable. The more modern a boat and the better equipped it is, the better its landings and the higher its profits are likely to be compared with the older vessels.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has apologised because he cannot remain for the rest of the debate, since he has another engagement, and I thank him for his courtesy in explaining that. As I have pointed out, this scheme does not mean that the inshore subsidy will be reduced. He asked why there was no mention in Clause 15 of Crustacea such as lobsters, crabs and crayfish. The short answer is that, for Crustacea, unlike molluscs, there is no known way of rearing them within the limits of an area suitable for an order of this kind.
We understand the concern of the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees about the effect of skin-diving for shellfish on their conservation, but it would not really help to try to apply to Crustacea these provisions which are appropriate only for oysters and other molluscs capable of being reared within a delimited area.
The hon. Gentleman was not so much concerned about holiday visitors but about professional skin divers. Sea Fishery Committee representatives concerned with the problem off the south and west coasts of England and Wales discussed the matter very fully with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and undertook to think further about it in the light of that discussion. A suitable byelaw was one possibility which was mentioned, but I cannot take that thought any further tonight, for it will be for my right hon. Friend to consider any byelaw proposal on its merits and in the light of any objections.
We discussed this matter closely with the Sea Fishery Committee which works closely with the Ministry and I do not think that some of the implied suggestions of its not always working closely with us were altogether fair. However, I welcomed the close analysis by the hon. Member for St. Ives of its possible role. I do not think that we could accept his request to use the Bill as a means for getting a subsidy for processing plants. That would be a matter for the President of the Board of Trade and the paraphernalia of investment grants and so on which are under his control. We already have power to regulate the size of shellfish which may be landed.
I think that covers most of the questions. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns made one or two

points of theory, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, going so far as to suggest that if we pushed up food prices, we could solve the problem of fish prices. We ought to look at that kind of proposal with a great deal of care.
I was asked about the administrative cost of the Bill. The Departments have already examined this aspect and have considered profit and loss returns. They have to do this in respect of individual vessels anyway and under the present system they make many payments for individual vessels in the course of a year, so that a great deal of the work is already done and will be undertaken under the same umbrella. Nevertheless, I assure hon. Members that I look for some savings in administrative costs which will be an added contribution to the industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have been very patient with a speech which necessarily has had to go far beyond the remit enclosed by the Bill itself.

Mr. McNamara: I realise that the debate has been very wide-ranging, but my hon. Friend has not answered one specific question which I asked and which was about the Bill, although that may have been an oversight on my part. It arises from the recent Court of Inquiry and the report and the recommendation about the marking of life-saving equipment. I asked whether Clause 5 specifically covered that.

Mr. Buchan: I should like to have a look at that question.
I particularly welcome the fact that this is the first Bill to be brought before the House in this Session. That is not only a tribute to the fishermen, to whom tribute has been paid this evening, but a recognition of the importance the Government give to this industry. In general, the Bill has had a warm welcome. I am confident, as the Chairman of the British Trawler Federation seems confident, that it marks at any rate the possibility of a new era for our fishing industry so that it can play its full rôle in the national recovery which is now taking place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Harper.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SEA FISHERIES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the subsidies payable to, and the levies which may be imposed on, the white fish and herring industries, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under any other enactment which is attributable to provisions of that Act relating to subsidies in respect of white fish and herring.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Harper.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959 and Part I of, and Schedule to, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 till the end of December, 1969, and of Part VII of the Licensing Act, 1964 till the end of March, 1970, being expenses which under any Act are to be paid out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Committee of Privileges to consist of Fifteen Members:

The Attorney General, Mr. Nigel Birch, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. Edward Heath, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. Duncan Sandys, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. George Strauss, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Turton, and Mr. Arthur Woodburn:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Six to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (REGISTERED TEACHERS)

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move,
That the Schools (Scotland) Code (Amendment No. 1) Regulations, 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1055), dated 2nd July, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be withdrawn.
My hon. Friends and I hoped to move a Prayer on this subject before the Summer Recess. The regulations were laid on 12th July and within a few days thereafter we sought to move a Prayer. I very much regret that the Government did not find time for us to debate these regulations in July before we rose for the Summer Recess. A debate at that time, before the regulations came into operation on 1st August, would have been helpful to the thousands of teachers affected by them and might well have avoided difficulties which some of them still face.
Our purpose in moving the Prayer is to probe further into the effects of the regulations and to put certain specific questions. I am sure that the Undersecretary will welcome the opportunity to explain the regulations more fully, although he will recognise as I do that some of the ground was covered in an Adjournment debate a few days ago initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). Indeed, some of our questions arise from the brief reply to that short but very useful debate.
The purpose of the regulations is clearly stated in an Explanatory Note which I will read because it puts them into a nutshell:
This amendment to the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 restricts from 1st August 1968 teaching employment in primary schools (other than special schools) to teachers who are either registered or conditionally registered by the General Teaching Council. This restriction applies also in secondary schools and special schools except that, for a period not exceeding five years, authorities are permitted, where the services of a registered or conditionally registered teacher cannot be obtained, to employ some other person on a temporary basis. Such an appointment must however be reported to a reference panel constituted by the Secretary of State; and where it is disapproved by the panel, the employment of the teacher must be


terminated. In any event the appointment cannot exceed one year without further review by the panel.
In addition Circular 680 from the Scottish Education Department set out the background to the regulations, pointing out that they arose from the recommendations of the Working Party on Uncertificated Teachers which was appointed by the General Teaching Council. The Working Party's main recommendation was that a category of conditionally registered teachers, should be established whereby uncertificated teachers would have the opportunity of joining the register conditionally, provided that they have fulfilled certain conditions, for example, had served three full terms and had been recommended by their head teacher with the support of the local director of education.
During the short period of conditional registration, the teacher's qualifications and experience would be reviewed and a decision reached about any further training that should be taken in order to secure full registration. Similar provisions were to apply to future entrants to the profession whose qualifications were found to be only marginally short of the requirements. This is a sensible proposal, tackling the long-standing problem of the uncertificated teacher, with which we have lived for long enough.
Some uncertificated teachers are good teachers. I say that because there are some certificated teachers who would have pressed for sterner action than is being taken to solve the problem of the uncertificated teacher. I want to emphasise this point. The only failure of some uncertificated teachers is that their professional, paper-type qualifications, are below, perhaps marginally below, the required level. It would be harsh to dismiss them and it would be unwise to require their dismissal when we are short of teachers.
In his reply to the Adjournment debate to which I referred, the Minister said that 227 uncertificated teachers were regarded as eligible for exceptional admission to the register right away and that a further 857 teachers had been granted conditional registration with the opportunity of acquiring the necessary qualifications for registration. Those teachers would be the last to be admitted to

the profession in the absence of some conditional provision of this kind.
I now turn to another effect of these regulations. It is from this that my major questions arise. The Wheatley Committee's Report said, and this was quoted by the Minister the other night:
We therefore recommend that registration with the Council be obligatory on all teachers who wish to claim entitlement to the benefits conferred by certificated status.
As the Explanatory Note, to which I have already referred, makes clear, teaching employment in primary schools is now restricted to teachers who are either registered or conditionally registered. This same restriction applies to secondary schools, and special schools except that for up to five years temporary appointments of non-registered teachers may be made, subject to the agreement of a reference panel. As the House knows, some teachers have not registered with the General Teaching Council. I made it clear in my speech in the recent Adjournment debate that I regarded registration as being in the best interests of the profession and of the individual teacher.
Further, the registration system is essential for the proper working of the General Teaching. Council, which I am sure all of us support. A number of fully-qualified teachers have not registered with the Council. Their reasons for not registering may not command the support of the Government, or many of my hon. Friends, but I suggest that the problem requires sympathetic handling. Some teachers, perhaps many, have not registered for a variety of reasons. Some, perhaps most, of the qualified but non-registered teachers belong to the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen the Association's latest letter, but one was sent to Scottish Members of Parliament dated 4th November. That letter opposes the principle of compulsory registration, a point of view which I do not accept. I believe that the principle is right. It is the manner of carrying it out which I question. The Association also sets out various objections to the composition and powers of the General Teaching Council. I suspect that this may be outside the permissible scope of this debate. If the Minister


can properly make any comment about these objections it would be very helpful. Clarification at this stage might remove some of them. If it is not possible to do this tonight for procedural reasons perhaps the Minister will find another opportunity.
One of the points raised by the Association relates directly to the regulations. This concerns the vagueness in the sentence:
As soon as practicable the Authority shall report the appointment to the reference panel.
The letter claims that these words "as soon as practicable" are vague and open to abuse. They are certainly vague and as the hon. Gentleman knows I am always suspicious of any imprecise wording in legislation. The law, and that includes regulations of this kind, must be precise. In this instance, the regulations are far from precise. I hops that the Minister will explain what is in his mind in using these words.
I note that Circular 680 dated 6th May, invited representations or observations on the draft of these regulations. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what representations he received from the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association in reply to that invitation and what discussion he subsequently had with the Association in an attempt to deal with its doubts and objections.
Some teachers have no doubt refrained from registering for reasons other than those set out by the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association. Some may have moral objections to the principle of registration, reasons which we can respect, even if we happen to disagree with them. Perhaps this debate will give the Minister an opportunity to try and persuade them that it is in the interests of education that the General Teaching Council should be clearly established as a professional body representing all the teaching profession. It might be argued that there is a moral issue in that too.
One of the most important questions I want to ask is, can the Minister yet tell us how many fully qualified teachers have not registered with the Council? It has been claimed, and it is claimed by the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association this week that the number may be as high as

between 3,000 and 4,000. I doubt whether the figure is as high as that. The Minister said in reply to the Adjournment debate that the number was "very small indeed". He did not really know, because he made it clear to the House that it was impossible at that stage to get the information.
It is right that we should insist tonight that the Minister should discover the actual figure. I presume that he could do this by consulting with the Council on the one hand, and local education authorities on the other. It will be astounding if he cannot give us more information tonight. If the figure is small, that is no reason for not trying to persuade his teachers to register. Perhaps the most effective persuasion would be to listen sympathetically to their objections and answer the points they raise. Surely that is a wiser course than appearing to ignore them.
If, on the other hand, the figure is large, I suggest that the Minister is placing an impossible requirement on local education authorities. He is requiring them to dismiss qualified but unregistered teachers who are subject to dismissal not because of any falling short in their qualifications, but because they happen not to have registered with the Council. I suggest that this requirement cannot be met at a time of teacher shortage if the number involved is really substantial.
If the Minister's intention is simply to let matters lie and not press the regulations he will turn the regulations into a dead letter, and make a nonsense of future regulations. It is because of that fundamental point, and not because of any objection to the principle behind these regulations, that I move the withdrawal. I trust that the Minister in his reply will be able to put my fears at rest and answer my questions, because if he can do that he will at the same time, reassure those teachers who have not registered that it is in the interests of education that they should do so.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition have tabled this Motion. I cannot see them pushing it to a Division in any conceivable circumstances. They have already said that they support the


Measure from which the regulations stem and that they are much in favour of the General Teaching Council. In fact, they are in favour of registration. They are not quite in favour of the way in which it is done. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), but I am not sure that I understand the objection. What is the objection to the way in which this is done? Teachers are now required to register instead of to obtain, as formerly, certification.
We have all had the matter of certification thrown at us for years. The demand from the teaching profession has been for the abolition of the right of anyone other than a certificated person to be employed in the teaching profession. That is what is being done in the Regulations. It is not to be done at one fell stroke, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, in fairness, it should not be done in one fell stroke. It is to be done within a stipulated period, and the hon. Gentleman said that this was reasonable.
As far as I can gather, the objection of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire is to the words "as soon as practicable" in the proposed paragraph (4)(a) in Regulation 3(2) which states that:
as soon as practicable the authority shall report the appointment to the reference panel".
He said that we must always oppose vagueness in legislation. The proposed paragraph (4)(b) of the Regulation 3(2) provides that
the authority"—
that is, the education authority making the appointment—
shall forthwith discontinue the appointment if the reference panel
to which the conditionally appointed teacher is referred for scrutiny as to his fitness to teach, although not a registered or certificated teacher,
having regard to all the relevant circumstances, determine that it shall not be approved".
The matter is referred to the panel "as soon as practicable". The proposed paragraph (4)(c) provides that
if the appointment is not disapproved as aforesaid, the authority may continue it at their discretion for a period of not more than twelve months from the date on which it was made…

My understanding of those words is that as from the date when the person was appointed there is a fixed period of one year within which the matter must be settled and, if it is not settled in this time, that person shall cease to be considered fit to continue in his post.
I cannot understand the cry that there is no time limit. There is a limit of a year. There is a further limitation in the regulations, namely, that even in the secondary school a person who we would now consider to be a non-certificated teacher shall be eliminated over a period of five years. He is being given an opportunity to qualify in the sense of being certificated.
We have always said that if and when the process of getting rid of non-certificated teachers were adopted, it should be done in such a way as would cause least injury to people who may have devoted many years of their lives to teaching and to the schools relying on such teachers. There are some teachers who are gravely unfit to teach. If they could not measure up to the standards laid down by the General Teaching Council, they should go. However, they should be given the opportunity to see whether they can measure up to those standards. This is what the Regulation does, in a way which places specific limitations on the period within which it shall be carried out.
We have all been subjected over a considerable time to a bombardment of criticism and worse than criticism of the General Teaching Council. I am sure that nobody in the House would agree with the main criticisms which have been levelled at the Council. For example, who among us would say that the Council should be dominated by teachers and that what might be called non-teaching interests should not have a powerful voice in the Council? The interests of the children must be represented, and I am all for teachers having a strong voice in this matter. They have 25 members out of 44 on the Council. In addition, many of the members of the Council are from the teaching profession. This is one of the objections which give rise to the difficulties with which we are confronted. The difficulty concerning the 3,000 or 4,000 qualified teachers would not arise if it were not for the criticism levelled at the Council.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman should not give the impression that all those who are fully qualified and who have declined to register have declined to register simply because of the composition of the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Lawson: I should be prepared to say that what the hon. Gentleman says is true. Perhaps a lot of people—I do not know whether there are a lot; I doubt whether there are as many as the 3,000 to 4,000 mentioned—do not know why they have not registered. Even such highly educated people as the hon. Gentleman sometimes talks about can be carried away with prejudices and mistaken ideas and blinded to a reasonable examination of what they object to. Anyone in the teaching profession, looking at the matter reasonably, cannot but say that in Scotland the teaching profession has been given what it does not have elsewhere—a large measure of control over its own profession.
I would like to turn the question round to another side of it. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said that if at a time when there is a great scarcity of teachers there are 3,000 or 4,000 qualified teachers who have not registered, we cannot turn them out of the profession. Very well. There are times when one must apply the law with a measure of reasonableness and one must think of the consequences.
On the other side of the picture, however, there may be education authorities who are reluctant at this stage to apply the Regulations with the full force with which they might be applied. There may be education authorities who are hanging on to their non-certificated teachers who, perhaps, could not measure up if they were to go before the reference panel.
I put it to the hon. Member, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that we cannot agree that qualified teachers, who refuse to register, should be treated differently from the non-qualified who are, as it were, covered up by the education authority concerned. In other words, if the position persists whereby a substantial number of qualified teachers refuse to register, they make it impossible reasonably to take action against those teachers who still continue in the

teaching profession, although they could not measure up to the qualifications. We cannot apply the Regulations both ways. We cannot protect the qualified teachers and say that we cannot turn them out because we need them, and then tell the others that they must get out because the Regulations say so. That would be to defeat our own purpose.
If the purpose of the teachers, the guides or the leaders of the teaching profession is to achieve a wholly registered profession equivalent to what they used to speak of as certificated teachers, they are standing in the way of their own objective as long as they refuse to be registered.

Mr. Esmond Wright: Surely, the hon. Member realises that we are imposing an obligation on the local authority to dismiss certificated teachers, who might have 20 or 25 years' experience. It is this threat which is at the centre of our concern.

Mr. Lawson: I agree. I am saying that the obligation is on the local authority to dismiss teachers who have not registered. Hon. Members are arguing that we cannot—must not—dismiss those qualified teachers who refuse to register because they are so badly needed. We cannot, and we ought not to, expect a local authority not to dismiss them and, at the same time, to dismiss the others.
If the education authority is expected to apply the Regulations, it must apply them all round. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) agrees with me. One would simply be putting the education authority in a position where, much as it might like to, it cannot deal with the one set of teachers because it is stymied with the other. It is absurd for this learned profession of people who shape the thinking of our children to put themselves in this position. The sooner they get themselves out of this position and recognise that they have in the General Teaching Council what they have asked for, years, the better. If some of them do not have 100 per cent. of what they might have asked for, they have got by far the most of it. They have an excellent Teaching Council.
My advice to the Opposition is to withdraw the Motion and to advise teachers all round to become registered.


On that basis alone, if they are themselves registered, will they have any legitimate claim to grouse at protection regarding the people who are not yet properly qualified.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) begin his speech by saying that he could not understand why we had put down the Motion. He proceeded to answer that by a number of points which he raised, many of which interested us. I only hope that it will not be thought outside this House that, because we put down the Motion to withdraw the Regulations, which is a procedural device to discuss them, we are against the General Teaching Council or the general principle of registration which evolves from that Council.
It was this side of the House, when in Government, which set up the Wheatley Committee. I think I am right in saying that, after it reported in 1963, a Bill was on the stocks which was produced by the present Government when they came into power in 1964. There might have been some differences in the Bill, but it was the intention of both sides to produce a Bill establishing a General Teaching Council. Indeed, when it went through the House its principle had support from all quarters.
There are two important points in these Regulations, first, the question of the uncertificated teachers, of whom we have a considerable number in Scotland at the moment, and secondly the point, which has been made, about the highly qualified teachers who have refused to register.
I think we have probably paid too little attention, in our previous discussions, particularly in the Adjournment debate, to the question of uncertificated teachers. Some of us who have been educated in independent schools tend to think that the uncertificated teacher is somebody who should be considered quite a good chap. I think our view is coloured by the sort of staff one gets in an independent school, people who probably get university degrees and are highly educated men though they have not been through a teacher training college.
However, this is not the correct picture at all of the uncertificated teachers in Scottish schools—with, of course, hon-

ourable exceptions. Most of them are totally unqualified, totally uninterested in what they are doing, and are either leaving teaching as soon as they possibly can or are unable to leave teaching because they cannot get another job. Few of them can keep discipline in the form, and the effect on the morale and patience of the qualified teachers is very, very bad indeed. All in all, though it is a great evil, part-time education is probably better than being taught by the average unqualified teacher.
These Regulations have already had a dramatic effect on the number of uncertificated teachers in Scottish schools. There were 2,579 in service, but already 1,020 will have to leave the educational service. In this respect the teaching profession has got something to be very thankful for in the General Teaching Council and these Regulations.
What is also important is the position of the highly qualified, experienced teacher who refuses to register under these Regulations. The first point is, what is the extent of this problem of teachers who have not registered? This we do not know, and this we really want to have the answer to from the Undersecretary of State, because without this answer we are really debating this question in a vacuum.
As far as I can see from the Digest of Scottish Statistics which came out last month, there were in Scottish public schools and grant-aided schools 39·7 thousand certificated teachers, and we know from the answer which the Undersecretary of State gave to the Adjournment debate that 48·5 thousand have applied for registration. There are a number of certificated teachers in Scotland who are not in service. There are many thousands of married women, retired teachers, teachers who are teaching overseas and for whom registration is really not necessary to continue in their professional career.
Even making allowance for those who are laggards there seem to be a lot of enthusiasts for registration, and who are registering although they do not appear to need to register at all. It therefore seems to me that the point which is made, for example, by the S.S.A., that the cost of registration, which is £1, is exorbitant and a deterrent, is absolute nonsense. There seem to be a large


number of people who registered just to get their professional qualification on the register and therefore have the opportunities of the entire system.
My second point about registration is that for a certificated teacher registration is as of right, it is automatic and qualifications are not considered.
My third point is whether registration is a limitation on the individual freedom of the teacher. This is a philosophical question which has been answered many times over the last 100 years. Registration secures professional status and professional standards and protects the public from the unqualified. Many professions have adopted registration over the years; for example, doctors, solicitors, dentists, nurses, architects, land agents and engineers. I am sure that it is their professional status and their wish to be numbered among these professions which are important in the minds of the teachers.
There are objections to registration. It may be too great an interference with the liberty of the individual to take on any trade he wishes. There was, for example, a borderline case two or three years ago involving house agents.
The public should realise that there is a real danger in children being educated by unqualified teachers which may be equal to the danger, in a different sense, of being treated by an unregistered dentist. Who wastes sympathy on a solicitor who chooses to throw up his livelihood by not paying the fee to renew his practice certificate? Who sympathises with the lorry driver who refuses on conscientious grounds to renew his driving licence?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but there is an important distinction between teachers on the one hand and solicitors and dentists on the other, in that solicitors and dentists are, or may be to a substantial extent, by the nature of their employment self-employed, whereas the teacher is not. Does this not represent a considerable distinction?

Mr. Brewis: There are a number of professions, for example, engineers and land agents, in which people are not necessarily self-employed. I would think

that there are few highly qualified and experienced teachers who are not registered, and in any case, under these Regulations, they have five years in which they can continue to teach in secondary schools, so that they plenty of time in which to make up their minds whether to register or not.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Primary schools.

Mr. Brewis: I can assure my hon. Friend who mentions primary schools that a certificated teacher in a primary school who wants a job in a secondary school will not have much difficulty at the present time in getting one. Therefore, we should accept these Regulations, as I am sure we shall, as being to the advantage of the teaching profession and of the public.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) said. Although I agree with much of what he had to say, I question in my own mind whether, if it were membership of a trade union which was being discussed in the same context, the hon. Gentleman would advance the same argument which he has advanced tonight. It is indicative of a difference in emphasis in the approach of the hon. Member for Galloway and that of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Coming through the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire were the views which have been put forward for some months by the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association. However, even from his speech, I fail to recognise the urgency or justification for putting down a Motion to withdraw the regulations.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we tried to get a Prayer debated in July, immediately after the draft Regulations were laid before the House. It is not our fault that so much time has passed. If a debate had been held when we wanted it, a great many of our objections to the Regulations would never have arisen.

Mr. Hannan: That is as it may be. But the same views came through the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite in our debates upstairs about the General Teaching Council.
There is a grave misconception among hon. Gentlemen opposite when they make reference to the 1965 Act. Their objections do not arise out of that Act but out of the Training Regulations of 1967. It was in the 1965 Act that responsibility for the certification of teachers was taken from the Secretary of State and placed statutorily on the newly created General Teaching Council. We cannot have two systems of certification, and the responsibility has rested on the General Teaching Council since 1st August of this year under these Regulations.
In 1961, a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite were at loggerheads with the teaching profession, so much so that, for the first time, the profession became united and held a one-day strike in Glasgow In those days, of course, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, and they had succeeded in persuading the teaching profession to accept a reduced standard, namely, the entry and acceptance of men teachers for a three-year diploma course on the same basis as that which had prevailed for women.
Following that, we had the Report of the Wheatley Committee, and part of the answer to the problem referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Wright) is enunciated by that Committee in its Report. It said, first:
We think it desirable, therefore, to stress that all existing certificated teachers will have to register with the council, from a date to be determined by it, if they wish to continue to be entitled to the advantages of certification.
That is what is happening. Later, the Committee said:
Our recommendations would lose much of their force if registered teachers did not have the same rights as certificated teachers and unregistered teachers did not have the same disabilities as uncertificated teachers.
That point has, I think, been largely accepted.
There is no reason for this Motion at all. The fact is that the Official Opposition have been rather pressurised into this present action because of an Adjournment debate the other night—

Mr. Mac Arthur: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, but he has grasped the wrong ends of so many sticks that I must do so. The Regulations were laid on 12th July, and we asked to debate a Prayer on 16th July.

There was then time for the Government to have allowed that Prayer to be debated before the Summer Recess. The Adjournment debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers had nothing to do with it at all, though it allowed us to cover some of the ground a few days ago. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Hannan: It is a question of a difference of view. I believe that this Motion would not have been tabled at all but for the Adjournment debate because, in the interval, explanations have become clearer—even to some hon. Members opposite.
The big problem for some of us is the running sore which has existed over so many years in Scottish education—the employment of uncertificated teachers. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), I am more interested in the quality of the teaching than in the status of those who teach. When many professions, such as physiotherapy, radiotherapy, the law, and even the universities, are demanding ever higher qualifications for entry, it is high time to increase the standards in the schools, which provide the most important source of supply of the human material for those various professions. For that reason, the Regulations should be put into effect. To do so is not only in each child's interests but in the interests of the community. This is particularly true of the primary schools and I am glad that the Regulations require that, at least in the primary schools, all teachers must have this certification.
I will be interested to hear my hon. Friend's reply to some of the figures that have been bandied about, and the talk of thousands of teachers still not registered. It is only a few days since my hon. Friend, replying to the same Adjournment debate said that 45,406 teachers were registered at that time while a further 3,000 applications had been received but not yet processed. One sees from the Scottish Education Department's Report for 1967 that there were 2,579 uncertificated teachers. It is therefore clear that although there have been 1,500 applications for conditional registration, some 1,000 uncertificated teachers have not taken the trouble to apply. This will be held in some quarters to increase the overall problem of teacher supply, and perhaps my hon. Friend can indicate what


the increased supply of teachers coming from the training colleges is likely to be in the near future.
Much more could be said, but one wants to be careful. I want to underline most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell said. In these matters the community, the consuming public, is far too often neglected. Although the improvement of the status of teachers or members of other professions is desirable in itself, in this case, it is not the most important thing.
The important thing we have to safeguard is the standard of the teachers in the schools. Among dentists and other specialists we want the best and that is also true of the teaching profession. I hope that the Opposition will withdraw this Motion and allow the Regulations to proceed.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am surprised that two such experienced Parliamentarians as the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) should object to our putting down this Motion on this important subject. They know the procedure of the House and they know that the only way to raise an important topic of this kind is to pray against an Order. The fact that tonight we have rather longer time than usual to discuss this Motion should gratify us all. The fact that so many wish to speak is a justification for our putting down the Motion, and the fact that the two hon. Members I have mentioned are keen to hear the Minister's answer shows how valuable this debate is.
I appreciate that, as the hon. Member for Maryhill said, this matter arises from the training regulations, but it must be discussed in relation to the Order. We discussed the subject at length during the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friends the hon. Hember for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) have explained it in great detail. I am told that in my area 100 per cent. of the primary school teachers, and a high proportion of secondary school teachers, have registered. We should support the G.T.C. and see that any reasonable re-

gulations are implemented. That is why it is right tonight to discuss these Regulations and to give the Council support. I believe it is correct.
Tonight we are asking for a progress report in order to allay some of the fears which have been raised over recent months and to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to many points which have been raised in Scotland since the regulations were made. As the hon. Member for Motherwell said, we are most concerned about the children, of whatever age. We are concerned to know that they will not suffer through a reduced standard of education because of fewer teachers, as a result of some having failed to register. As the Minister said in his reply to the Adjournment debate, the number is very small indeed, and it will not have a major detrimental effect on education in Scotland.
I felt, certainly during the passage of the Bill, very sympathetic towards the uncertificated teachers who over the years, especially in country areas, have done a very good job. I think we have moved only marginally too fast towards asking them to register. I think that skilled and experienced uncertificated teachers will, without difficulty, obtain certification and, through conditional registration, will have no difficulty in carrying on their profession.
We are not concerned tonight so much with this type of teacher as, perhaps, with those who have disagreed with the principle of compulsory registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway put this point very clearly. I could not put it better. The Regulations must be generally acceptable to the majority. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway, I am certain that the Teaching Council is an advantage to the profession. I am sure that the Regulations will be administered with sympathy.
On the administration side, I hope that the Council is proceeding to set up the committees and panels which will have to look at this matter in more detail in the future. This is certainly a difficult period for the Council, for teachers, and for local authorities. It is up to us to try to smooth over these difficulties. This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to give those members of the profession who have not registered a lead in the


right direction. We should do all that is possible to smooth the path and to ensure that the happiest possible relationships ensue between local authorities, teachers, the Council, and children, in Scotland.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: When this Motion was tabled on 15th July, I thought that we would have a hard-hitting debate. I believe that hon. Members opposite are relieved at the passage of time between the tabling of the Motion and this debate. Their views have tempered greatly. I can disagree with hardly anything that has been said by them tonight. I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said.
I am stimulated to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because of the circular which has been received from the Scottish Schoolmasters Association. There is nothing unusual about receiving circulars from the Association. Whenever the Government introduce any educational matter, there is a deluge of protest from the Association. It seems to have a permanent drip at the end of its nose. It is time that it got a handkerchief to keep its nose clean. The Association seems determined to promote unrest within the profession in Scotland, unrest which will manifest itself in dissatisfaction with the Government. I believe that this is the only reason why hon. Members opposite propose that the Regulations be withdrawn.
The circular asks that the Regulations be withdrawn. It accuses the Secretary of State of diluting the profession, of giving teaching status to the unqualified. It says that there is no control over entry into the profession. This is complete nonsense. The Council is democratic. Every teacher has a vote for the Council. The rights of minorities are preserved—primary teaching, secondary teaching, further education. It may be that there are too many headmasters on the Council, but that is a matter of degree and not of principle. The profession is not being diluted. The very essence of these regulations is that there is now control over that which hitherto was uncontrollable.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) commented that the expression
as soon as practicable

is ambiguous. I suppose that it is, but in answer to a Question last week my right hon. Friend said that there was only one local authority out of 35 which had abused the Regulations, and the very existence of the Regulations had given one association of teachers the opportunity to challenge that abuse in the courts.
In my view, the Regulations are entirely necessary. The Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965, created the General Teaching Council, the first of its kind in the world. Being the first, it will inevitably have teething troubles if it is to have teeth at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said, the Council was charged with keeping a register of fully qualified teachers, and registration with the Council replaces certification.
I cannot emphasise too much the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill that by any attempt to amend the Regulations we should simply go back to the situation before August, 1968. Between April and August, 1968, there were no barriers put in the way of authorities which wished to employ the most unsuitable persons in schools, and many of them did. No qualifications of any kind were specified, and unregistered teachers or persons whose own education was sadly deficient, who were a menace to the educational future of the pupils under their care, were in many instances employed in our schools in the guise of teachers.
It is a sad fact that everyone imagines that he or she can teach. This is one of the causes of the exploitation of the profession and one reason why the status of teachers is much lower that it should be. The most influential and responsible part of the profession was just not prepared to accept such an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it is that state of affairs which is being rectified by the first amending Regulation. The Regulations severely curtail the freedom of educational authorities to employ any Tom, Dick or Harry in the guise of teacher.
Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, the Regulations ensure to a great extent that the parents of


Scotland would not be deluded into thinking that their children were being educated when, in fact, they were simply in the care of child minders.
Hon. Members opposite have asked questions about the reference panels. We can see that the reference panels are working and the General Teaching Council is working. The reference panels, each with a representative of the authority, a representative of the teachers and an independent chairman, have the job of scrutinising qualifications for registration or conditional registration and of disapproving the employment of anyone who has nothing to contribute to the educational needs of our children. In the primary schools we are well on the way to having a fully qualified profession. The Regulations go even further. If people do not have qualifications for full registration, they must have them for conditional registration.
Those who do not understand the Regulations, or do not wish to understand them, have represented that conditional registration constitutes a monstrous dilution of the profession. But what are the facts? Before the advent of registration, an unqualified teacher could carry on teaching year after year without any pressure being brought to bear on him or her to become a full member of the profession. Now, provided such a teacher overcomes the first hurdle of obtaining a satisfactory report from the head teacher and director of education, he or she will be given all possible assistance and a reasonable, if necessarily limited, time to obtain the full qualifications, or be compelled to seek employment outwith a profession of which he or she has no intention of becoming a full and qualified member. Could anything be more reasonable? I do not think that more reasonable Regulations could be put forward.
Therefore, instead of having a so-called profession which employing authorities can dilute at will, without reference to members of the profession, the teachers of Scotland, thanks to the Regulations being decried by some hon. Members opposite and by the Scottish Schoolmasters Association, are well on the way to having a real profession of the fully qualified. In the interim period, they can exercise a close scrutiny and

control over the employment of those who have not fully qualified, through their representatives on the General Teaching Council and reference panels, and through the head teachers, who are called on to give reports on those who apply for conditional registration.
If the Regulations are withdrawn—and I think that hon. Members opposite are terrified lest that should happen—we shall return to the pre-August position, in which teachers had no control over the unqualified or the dilutee, and education authorities could and did employ anyone, no matter how unsuitable, as a teacher. Therefore, those who would have the Regulations withdrawn are ignorant of the import of these and associated regulations.
Perhaps I am being too kind to the opponents of the Regulations. Perhaps they realise that their annulment would restore the pre-August position, except that teachers would then have the expense and disciplinary burden of registration without the corresponding benefit of being members of a fully qualified, and therefore respected, profession of standing in the community. The vast majority of reasonable and responsible members of the Scottish teaching profession are behind the Government in the Regulations. The tiny, disruptive minority, distorting and distrusting everything that is done, are doing the profession no good.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said about the timing of the Prayer, and I was a little astonished, because a Prayer was put down against the Regulations at the first possible opportunity, as soon as they were tabled. They are Regulations of no moderate significance.

Mr. Buchanan: I said that hon. Members put the Prayer down on 15th July, but that they are very grateful for the interlude to modify their views.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that what he said was that we were glad that there was a long delay, but that is totally untrue as far as I and, I believe, all my hon. Friends are concerned. The reverse


is true; we find it outrageous that the Government have not provided time for the discussion of this most important subject. Since the purpose and import of the Regulations, as set out very clearly in the Explanatory Note, is to require local authorities in some instances to dismiss fully qualified, experienced, highly trained and certificated teachers, one would have thought that the Government could have had the courtesy to provide an opportunity to discuss the Prayer before now. The House has been treated disgracefully.
The discussion so far seems to have had something a little academic about it. Perhaps that is no bad thing of a basically academic subject. However, I am concerned with the situation as I find it in my constituency and also, because of an overlapping domicile, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and with the situation that actually faces us as a result of the passing of the Regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) said he felt that rather too much attention in our discussion today and the Adjournment debate had been paid to the position of the certificated, qualified teachers who declined to register, as opposed to that of the uncertificated teachers. On the whole I disagree with him. To my mind there has been a conscious attempt, on the part of the Government at any rate, to disregard the position of the highly-qualified certificated teacher under these Regulations, and it is to this exclusively that I shall address my remarks.
As we have been reminded, during the Adjournment debate the other night the Under-Secretary said very airily that he could:
say, with a good deal of confidence, that the number of certificated teachers actually in service in the schools who have not registered must be very small indeed…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd Oct.,1968; Vol. 770. c. 1246.]
We are all concerned about the difficulty that we face of not knowing what the number is. I understand how the difficulty arises. As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway pointed out, a great many teachers not presently teaching are entitled to register and have registered. The problem is that we have,

in effect, an open-ended equation. So we do not have a clear idea of how many highly qualified, properly trained and experienced certificated teachers have declined to register.
The figure of 3,000–4,000 in the memorandum from the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association seems a wild exaggeration and must include a very large number of teachers who are not currently in teaching. Nevertheless, to my mind the Under-Secretary's comment in the Adjournment debate was wildly at variance with the facts as I see them in my area. From my own experience and the representations made to me, I can say with some confidence that more than a score of fully-qualified, highly experienced, certificated teachers in the County of Angus alone, excluding Dundee, have declined to register. One does not know the exact number, of course, but I give the figure from the representations made to me by the individuals concerned.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the reasons why they have not registered and whether they are members of any teachers' associations?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyue: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance, I shall come to that point. Before doing so I should also make clear that of this score or more known to me, a substantial number—at least a dozen; perhaps more—are currently employed in primary schools. They should, therefore, already have been sacked under the provisions of the regulations by the Angus Education Authority.

Mr. James Hamilton: Mr. James Hamilton rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to answer his question. What are their reasons? I must say that, from representations they have made to me, I have not found it easy to understand what their objections to registering are. This I freely concede. In many cases I get the impression that it is not so much the nature of the composition of the Teaching Council to which they object, but the fact, to put it more simply, that since they are qualified and are certificated, they do not see the purpose of registering. I accept that this is not a good argument but it is the situation we face.
It seems to me that there is a considerable element of bluff about the regulations. I asked my local education authority what he intended to do. I pointed out that, to my knowledge, perhaps 20 or 30 or more teachers in the area have declined to register, for good or bad reasons. The answer, in effect, was, "After you, Claud", as the old phrase had it. In other words the local education authority is waiting to see what others are going to do and it is my impression that that is the attitude of all local education authorities in this situation.
One is also led to understand that it is the intention of the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association—and I hold no brief for that organisation—to challenge in the courts the first local authority that applies the Regulations against a fully qualified certificated teacher and sacks him. I am further told—I do not know how good the authority is—that it is likely that the Association would win the case. If that were to happen, the Regulations would collapse.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman supporting these 20 or more teachers in his area or condemning their action?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am trying to set out the facts and to find out how the Government will deal with them. I am not concerned with condemnation or support. But a significant number of teachers in Angus have not registered, although they are fully qualified, and I want to know what is going to happen to them.

Mr. James Hamilton: Mr. James Hamilton rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me get on.

Mr. James Hamilton: But you have not answered part of my question. You have mentioned 20 teachers and have told us that 12 are primary teachers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not told the House anything.

Mr. James Hamilton: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has told us that 20 teachers or more in his constituency, to his knowledge, have not registered and that 12 are primary teachers. If I understand him correctly,

he does not understand why they have not registered. On that basis, I assume that he is opposed to their not registering. Will he tell us whether they are members of a teachers' organisation?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He did put two questions to me and I forgot to answer the second one. It is an important question. It was put to me by the local members of the Educational Institute whom I saw about the matter. As far as I can tell, the teachers concerned are more or less equally divided between the three major organisations, with one-third being in the Educational Institute of Scotland, one-third in the S.T.A., and one-third in the S.S.A.
I get the impression that the Government are hoping that the stragglers will gradually come into line, or that, if they do not, they will somehow not be noticed. I can assure the Under-Secretary that, if he thinks that, he is quite wrong. They will not come into line and, from what I have been able to learn, I am sure that they would be noticed.
I did not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway when he said that there was a great deal of enthusiasm for registration. That may be true in his area, but I am bound to tell him that it is not in mine. I can tell him from my experience that in Angus there is a marked lack of enthusiasm for registration and, if it is found that there are stragglers who have not registered and who have continued not to register, I have no doubt that there will be many more when the time comes to renew the fee next year.
In other words, these Regulations may be proved invalid by law or not enforced. If they were not enforced, to judge from our experience in Angus it would mean dismissing teachers with many years of experienced work behind them, teachers with excellent qualifications and records, at a time when there is a serious shortage of teachers.
There is a possible answer to the Government's dilemma. I suggest that the Under-Secretary takes away these regulations and brings in others with two purposes. One would be to require all teachers entering the profession to register with the General Teaching Council. The second would be to deny to qualified


teachers—and I am talking specifically about those qualified teachers to whom I have been devoting my remarks—who refuse to register not their right to teach, but their right to enjoy the results of future wage awards negotiated by the G.T.C.

Mr. Speaker: On these Regulations, the hon. Gentleman may not discuss the regulations which he wishes the Minister to bring in but which are not before us.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. In any case, thanks to your indulgence, I have been able to make the point. If we have to think purely in terms of these Regulations, as opposed to what I have suggested as a possible alternative, we shall land ourselves in an impossible dilemma of enforcement or disregard and, for that reason, I cannot agree that we should proceed very wisely if we approve these Regulations tonight.

9.28 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I do not agree with the criticism made of hon. Members opposite by my hon. Friends for bringing forward this Prayer, because, if nothing else, the debate on this matter of such importance to education, particularly to the future of our children, will show those who are completely opposed to the General Teaching Council what little basis there is in the case against it. For that reason, if for no other, we should thank hon. Members opposite for moving the Prayer.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I waited throughout his interventions in other speeches and during his own to find just where he, as an individual, stood on this issue. I want to find out, if the hon. Member for South Angus opposes these Regulations, what he would put in their place?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have told the right hon. Lady.

Miss Herbison: I am coming to that. It was a good thing for the hon. Member that Mr. Speaker intervened, because if we have this tiny minority among the Scottish teachers who are opposed to these Regulations saying that we are interfering with their freedom now, I can tell him, knowing the teaching profession, having been a member of it for 15 years,

that the feeling against these regulations from these people would be as nothing, chicken-feed, compared with the feeling against the kind of Regulations which he suggests we might put in their place.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: All I can say is that to my mind what I was suggesting would be logical, fair and enforceable, whereas the other is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was kind to the hon. Gentleman just now. He must leave that.

Miss Herbison: These Regulations are logical and fair and I hope that they will be enforceable. The hon. Member kept asking the Under-Secretary of State what would the Government do if these 20 people in his constituency—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Or more.

Miss Herbison: —and the others, and we do not know the numbers, did not register. Incidentally I hope that my hon. Friend can give us the numbers of those who refused to register. It is not the Secretary of State who has to do anything, it is the General Teaching Council. It is of the greatest importance that hon. Members and every teacher in Scotland should now realise that the Secretary of State has nothing to do with certification, that Scotland is the only country in the world where teachers now have real power in their own hands. I am glad that the vast majority of Scottish teachers are proud to have this power. I know that in many other countries they would give almost anything to have it.
It is for that reason, particularly, that I support these regulations. When the hon. Member was asked a question by one of my hon. Friends, he said that he was not concerned with support or condemnation of those who were taking a line against these Regulations. I had always thought that one of the important functions of Members of Parliament was to try to give leadership and that a Member ought on such vital matters not to sit on the fence.
If a Member of Parliament feels that this is a good thing, not just for the teaching profession in Scotland, but for the education of our children, then he ought to say to those teachers in his constituency that that is what he believes, and he ought by persuasion to be doing


everything he possibly can to get them to register with the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady again, but I ought to assure her that when these teachers came to see me I did urge them to register.

Miss Herbison: I am very glad to hear that, but one would never have got that from the "not concerned with condemnation" attitude. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has really tried to persuade these teachers to register.
At present there is one matter of very great importance for the education of children in my constituency.
It has been said that only one education authority in Scotland had brought no names before the reference panel. But that education authority is the second biggest in Scotland, and it is responsible for the education of many thousands of children. I am sorry to say that it is my own education authority of the County of Lanark.
I stress a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) made. If we support the Scottish Schoolmasters Association or anyone else opposed to registration, we cannot say to any education authority in Scotland, "We shall enforce these Regulations and you will have to bring before a reference panel the names of uncertificated teachers".
I have been seriously worried for years about the question of uncertificated teachers in our schools. As far as I am aware, the Lanark education authority has had the greatest number of uncertificated teachers. I know that it objected to these Regulations. I expect that, like myself, every Lanarkshire Member had a letter from the Director of Education. I wrote back to him saying that I supported the Regulations completely and could not support the argument against sending to reference panels the names of uncertificated teachers. I hope that the under-Secretary of State will be able to give some information about whether any further decision has been made by the Lanarkshire Education Authority. If not, I should like him to

tell us what measures he will take against Lanark education authority to enforce the Regulations.
I am not only concerned about the status of the teaching profession, which is important. I am one of those who believe that one cannot separate the status of the teaching profession from the provision of the best education facilities for children. They are closely linked. These Regulations give a better status to the teaching profession, and I hope that they will be a source of attraction for some of our best young people to come in to the teaching profession.
I am glad that we have debated this Prayer. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to show clearly to the parents and to the teaching profession in Scotland that we are concerned about the education of our children. I believe that the Regulations will greatly help to provide the kind of teaching profession that all of us who are interested in the well-being of our children wish to see.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I agree with almost everything that the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said. Despite what the hon. Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said, the value of the debate is that it has made clear to people outside where hon. Members stand. One thing which has been made plain is that we all stand behind the General Teaching Council and what it is trying to achieve. The right hon. Lady said that hon. Members must give leadership to their constituents. But we have another function to perform, and that is to represent in the House the views of those constituents who make their views known to hon. Members, whether they agree with them or not. That was why my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was entirely right to put forward those views, because that is one of the reasons why we are here.
At this stage of the debate, there is very little else that can be said and, therefore, I shall be brief. I would, however, like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus in putting


forward views which have been put to me with a certain amount of sincerity by a number of constituents.
What concerns me is that in the present atmosphere, which I condemn, outside this House among certain sections in relation to the General Teaching Council, the work of the Council and all that we want it to achieve will not be accomplished if things continue as they are at the moment. Therefore, the value of this debate is that it has given us the chance to bring home to the Under-Secretary, as, I am sure, he knows, that one must be aware of what is happening and must accept it; and accepting what is happening, one must seek to overcome the problem in the most constructive possible manner.
It is an utter mistake to think that those who have spoken to me and who oppose the Council and who refuse to register, and who, therefore, are coming under threat from the Regulations, oppose it because they belong to a certain teachers' association. I hope that this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). One of the things that I have tried to discover from them is whether they oppose the Council because they belong to one particular teachers' organisation or another.
I certainly regret and deplore the kind of quarrel and constant bickering that goes on between teachers' organisations in Scotland which is totally against the best interests of education in Scotland. I could not say that too strongly. For the good of education in Scotland, I wish that it would stop and that people would get together in a constructive spirit.
Many of those who have expressed to me their opposition of the Regulations have done so as a matter of principle. Whether we agree with them or not, let us at least accept that for some of them it is a matter of principle. It is difficult to understand, but one of the main reasons that has been put to me, particularly among older, well-qualified teachers, is that they are having to comply with conditions which did not exist when they first qualified. Whether it is pique to their professional pride I do not know, but let us be quite clear that these views are genuinely held by a number of people.
The second thing concerning the teachers' organisations to which the people who object belong—I have found this in my constituency in the County of Angus and in Kincardine, and it is also true in approaches which I have had from teachers in the City of Aberdeen—is that while certain people have not registered, there are also those who have registered but who have done so, as they say, under protest.
I discovered in Montrose Academy, in my constituency, that in a protest which was made by teachers against registration, although some of them registered only four who protested were members of the S.S.A. I understand that in Aberdeen Academy there was a similar "round robin" and that out of 29 E.I.S. members, 25—or 85 per cent.—signed the protest, whereas of the S.S.A. and S.S.T.A. members together, 38 out of 64—a lower percentage—signed the protest.
It is extremely important for us to remember that this protest is, first of all, carried forward by people who oppose the Council as a matter of principle, however misguided we consider them to be. Secondly, there are others who are either not registering or are protesting, not because of pressure from a teachers' organisation, but because of their own feelings in the matter. These are important matters which have been put to me genuinely by constituents. They are important facts which, I hope, the Under-Secretary of State will take into account. What I wish is to see this resolved.
The criticism which I have heard of the General Teaching Council and the whole problem of registration is that there has been a lack of communication between the Council and the profession. I have heard what seems to me a very fair criticism, that there has been lack of communication between the teachers and their organisations themselves. I think this is true, and in other professional organisations, outside the teaching profession, there is lack of communication between the members of the organisations and those leading them. That is another view which has been put to me, and it is, perhaps, one of the reasons why we have this problem, and I hope that this factor may be taken into account.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Esmond Wright: The subject has been so thoroughly canvassed that there is very little to add, but when the Minister replies I would like him to address himself to two questions.
Before I put those two questions, may I attempt to clarify this issue which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has described as a matter of principle? I am sure that the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will share my views, because I, too, am or have been a teacher in a slightly different area. I believe that this is a matter not only of principle but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) described it, of morality. If we are trying to establish a General Teaching Council which is a truly professional body, then we must expect that there will be some people who do not want, under decree or by order, to have to register with that Council as part of their own professional integrity. This, I believe, is the core of the problem. I do not think it is adequate for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Buchanan) to describe this simply as teething troubles. Of course, they are teething troubles, and it may be that there are few teeth that are sore because of the passage of time, but I believe that there remains the question of morality involved in this, and that it is more than a question of principle only.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Where is there coercion in this case that is not present with doctors or dentists, or any other professional body?

Mr. Wright: Because in terms of the Act teachers are required to register with the General Teaching Council. A doctor takes an oath to a cause, which is not merely a profession, but of which that professional body is the voice. I suspect that we are missing this issue here, and a number of the people who have come to me, as they have come to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus and my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and who have spent thirty years in the profession, do not want to be ordered to take high professional standards. This is part of the very integrity which teachers, I would think, respect.

Mr. Alex Eadie: What is the difference between them and, for example, a miner who is compelled to wear a hard hat before he goes underground but does not want to and says, "I am not going to wear a hard hat"? If he does not, he does not get underground. What is the difference?

Mr. Wright: We are now beginning to debate the whole question of what is a profession. What I am trying to suggest is that once we give order we are beginning to deny professional integrity. We could talk in these general terms for a very long time, but let us come to the questions I want to put.
I should like to hear the Minister's views on this. Will he allow local authorities to dismiss, as, indeed, under the Act they are required to dismiss, qualified teachers simply because they have refused to register? This is where the question of morality comes in, and it is a matter not merely of law, or of this House, but of the fundamental purpose of setting up the General Teaching Council.
My second question—and I want to shift my ground a little—is, will the Minister protect the public from some of the risks of giving total independence to the General Teaching Council, lest we get into a situation whereby it restricts membership of the teaching profession to those it believes are adequately prepared and trained—for example, products of Scottish schools and Scottish universities—and ban from entry into the Scottish teaching profession those who get their qualifications in, say, England, or in, say, New Zealand, to cite a recent case? Perhaps I am beginning to trespass on to a wider subject, but we must not allow the General Teaching Council, in sheltering its professionalism, to abuse that professionalism. We desperately need in the schools more and better-qualified teachers.
I do not want to take up the issue of improving or dismissing the uncertificated teacher. Of course, we want to improve standards, but I am frightened of erecting a system whereby we discourage people from entering the profession in Scotland, whether they are educated in Scotland or outside, by the imposition of rigid and provincial standards of entry. In this sense there is a risk in setting up the General Teaching Council, but I believe that enough has been said here tonight


to show that from both sides we wish to protect the interests of the teaching profession and see the General Teaching Council as the best way of doing so.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) has delivered a fascinating speech, In a sense, he has let the cat out of the bag. If it is true that the teachers' real worry is, as I understood him to say, that they were being ordered to do things against their will by some decree, surely it is a reflection of a certain almost petty irritation on the part of teachers who take that attitude. All of us in our working lives have to accept some kind of order.

Mr. Wright: Mr. Wright rose—

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Member wishes me to give way, of course I will. I may have misunderstood him.

Mr. Wright: I do not know whether you misunderstood me, but I am trying to establish the point that a teacher with a sense of professional integrity who has honoured that by teaching for 30 or 35 years may well, quite legitimately, feel that he does not then by order or by law have to become a member of the General Teaching Council. He is honouring his cause and has done so throughout his life. I am simply saying that many such people have come to me and registered concern.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us who have been members of the profession have tried for a long time to get precisely this kind of public recognition, and if it involves some kind of order from outside, this must be accepted, as it is by those who work in universities and in all spheres. I cannot see what the complaint is, other than an insinuation about teachers that I would not for one moment accept.

Mr. Wright: I do not want to continue this argument, but the parallel with the university makes my case. In order to teach in a university, it is not necessary to become a member of any professional body. It is assumed that one is equipped, trained and has certain standards. It is because, in the past, this has not obtained in the schools that the General Teaching Council was set up.

Mr. Dalyell: This does not hold at all. There is entry qualification, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) well knows, and certain rigorous standards must be fulfilled before one can be accepted.
My hon. Friend has many points to answer, and I would simply like to say that surely, in England, there is the opportunity for a teacher to improve himself, and the last part of the hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to me to be purely fallacious.

9.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I very much welcome the opportunity of debating these regulations tonight. I hope that does not put me in too bad an odour with some of my hon. Friends. A fortnight ago we had an opportunity of discussing these regulations, at least indirectly, in a short Adjournment debate, but I welcome the opportunity of expanding a little on what I said on that occasion. I am also very happy to note that all hon. Members who have spoken support the principle of the Regulations, though I appreciate some of the points of anxiety that have been put to me and will do my best to answer them.
I think that it would be convenient to remind the House again of the background to the Regulations. Even tonight, despite what was said a fortnight ago, there were misunderstandings about the effect of them.
Prior to the establishment of the General Teaching Council, the responsibility for establishing requirements for entry to the profession rested entirely with the Secretary of State. It was his responsibility to take care of matters of recognition, probation and discipline, and his control in these matters was exercised through the system of certification.
However, it was a central feature of the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee that this system should be replaced by one of registration with the Council, and that the Secretary of State should surrender his powers of certification. Thus, effective control over the profession would pass from a Minister of the Crown to a professional body constituted on the same lines as councils in other professions, such as medicine, dentistry, nursing, and the like, subject always to the point, as the Wheatley Committee put it,


which I am sure the House will agree we must maintain,
…that the ultimate responsibility for the schooling of the nation's children is and must remain that of the Secretary of State.
The Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965, followed from the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee. It was clear that, if the Council was effectively to take over the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, registration must replace certification as a requirement for employment in primary and secondary schools. The Wheatley Committee recognised that and recommended that registration should be obligatory on all teachers who wished to claim entitlement to the benefits conferred by certificated status.
It is of crucial importance that we understand the issue clearly, because the long sequence of events initiated by the Wheatley Report has brought us inevitably to the position that, if a teacher wishes to be regarded as qualified in all respects to teach in primary or secondary schools and have the attendant benefits of being so qualified, he must register with the General Teaching Council. Objection to registering because he may dislike some aspect or other of the Council is no more open to him than it would be open to a lawyer to object to taking out a practice certificate from the Law Society of Scotland, or to a doctor to object to registering with the General Medical Council.
The Regulations preceding the current ones, the Teachers (Education, Training and Registration) (Scotland) Regulations, 1967, which came into operation on 1st April of this year, therefore, prescribed the qualifications required for registration with the Council and took account of the substitution of registration for certification by making an important Amendment to the Schools (Scotland) Code. Prior to 1st April, the Code stipulated that a person appointed to a teaching post in an education authority school should be a certificated teacher; that is, a teacher holding the Secretary of State's certificate of competence to teach.
The Amendment substituted registration for certification as the normal requirement for such an appointment, and that brought certain disabilities to the certificated teacher, as from 1st April,

who did not register. According to the Code, he could no longer retain a permanent appointment. His prospects of promotion, and so on, were restricted by the Regulations which came into operation on 1st April.
I want to make that clear because it should be understood that, even if the regulations were not accepted—and I see no prospect of it happening—these disabilities to the certificated teacher who has not registered would still remain, because they follow from the previous Regulations and not from those which we are debating tonight.
The Schools (Scotland) Code (Amendment No. 1) Regulations make a further change as from 1st August. This Amendment prohibits entirely the appointment of unregistered teachers—in other words, those who are neither fully nor conditionally registered—in primary schools and imposes restrictions on their appointment in secondary schools—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Education (Scotland) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Millan: As I was saying, the amendment we are now making prohibits entirely the appointment of unregistered teachers in primary schools, and imposes restrictions on their appointment in secondary schools and special schools. While it permits an education authority to continue to make such appointments on a temporary basis in secondary schools, the authority is required by the regulations to submit each appointment to a reference panel set up by the Secretary of State. If the reference panel disapproves the appointment, the authority is required to terminate it forthwith.
Two additional points are of importance. First of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) pointed out, an appointment cannot be approved for longer than a year in the first instance. Secondly, the whole reference panel system is to extend for no more than five years from 1st August,


which means that at the end of that time the position of secondary schools will be the same as the position we have at the present time in the primary schools.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Minister is talking about the appointment of teachers, but the Explanatory Note to the Regulations makes it absolutely clear that it does not merely apply to the appointment—it restricts continuing employment. That is the point.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my explanation the other evening, and it seems obvious that he does not intend to listen again this evening. However, if he will wait, he will get an explanation of these points, and may conceivably even understand the explanation, though I rather doubt that in view of what he said on a previous occasion.
What I should like to emphasise is that these regulations—that is to say, the regulations that came into operation on 1st August—made no change at all in the Regulations of 1st April in relation to the permanent appointment of qualified teachers. The Regulations with which we are now dealing are concerned only with the temporary appointments that sometimes have to be made when no properly qualified teachers are available. I therefore hope that it will be clear to the House that the code amendment which came into operation on 1st August did not affect in principle the position of certificated teachers; that is to say, qualified teachers who had obtained their qualifications before the Secretary of State's certificate was replaced by registration with the General Teaching Council.
By the amendments that came into operation on 1st April, such teachers were required to change over to the new system of registering with the Council in order to retain or secure permanent teaching appointments. That, for them, was the really significant change in the situation. The amendments we are now considering, on the other hand, are directed at quite a different group of people; namely, the unqualified persons, who in no circumstances can be given permanent appointments because they are neither registered nor conditionally registered. This takes us to the problem of what

used to be called the uncertificated teacher but who must now more accurately be described as the unqualified teacher—a problem that we have had with us ever since the end of the war, and a problem, also, which has been growing steadily and getting more difficult of solution the longer we have had it.
In the last session we had about 2,500 uncertificated and unqualified teachers in post—I think that that was the figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan)—but the General Teaching Council, by introducing a concept of conditional registration, has provided a means whereby the qualification and performance of these teachers can be scrutinised. Those who on the basis of head teachers' reports are regarded as giving satisfactory service and with a certain minimum length of service to their credit are being given the chance to secure full registration. Those who are not in that position, are of course being eliminated from the schools.
I gave some figures when I spoke about this on 22nd October. I said then that there were 1,599 teachers who had applied for conditional registration and had not withdrawn their application. Of these 227 were regarded as eligible for exceptional admission to the register right away, 857 had been granted conditional registration for a limited period to obtain the necessary qualifications, and 475 were given conditional registration only for an initial period. Therefore the process of eliminating from the schools through the process of conditional registration those whose qualifications to teach are absolutely minimal whether in terms of experience or professional or academic qualification, is going ahead, I think, very satisfactorily.
So far as those neither registered nor conditionally registered are concerned, we are now dealing with them by the reference panel procedure laid down by the Regulations which we are discussing tonight. One advantage of discussing these Regulations rather late in the day is that I am able to give the House some information about the operation of the reference panels. Perhaps therefore I should bring up to date the information which I gave a fortnight ago. The total number of references to the reference panels constituted under these Regulations by 5th


November was 704 and 572 of these have already been dealt with and 132 are still under consideration. If one considers the total number of uncertificated teachers we had in the service last Session and takes account of the process of conditional registration, I think one can see right away that already the vast bulk of the unqualified teachers who are neither registered conditionally nor fully have already been submitted to the reference panels.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) made the point that one authority had not submitted any names to reference panels. There are in fact three authorities in that situation, but the other two are small authorities and I think we can take it that they have no unqualified persons to submit. The other authority is Lanarkshire and we know there must be considerable numbers of unqualified persons there affected by the reference panel procedures laid down in these Regulations. As I understand the Lanarkshire position the appropriate sub-committee of the education committee has taken the decision that these names should be put forward to the reference panel, but that decision, unless it was ratified today, has not yet been ratified by the full education committee.
If the education authority in Lanarkshire does not submit these names to the reference panels, it will be in default of the Regulations we are discussing. It will be my intention to see that that default does not continue for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I give the undertaking to my right hon. Friend that I shall certainly see that the position in Lanarkshire is taken care of. If the authority does not submit the names, I repeat, it will be in default of the reference panel procedure, and therefore in default of the law.
I hope I have made clear that when we are talking about these regulations we are talking essentially about the problem of unqualified teachers. I hope, too, I have made clear that any suggestion that we should have in any way avoided or delayed submitting these Regulations, even if that had been possible in face of the obligations under the 1965 Act, would have meant that we would not have been able to deal with this problem of unqualified teachers. My hon. Friend

the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) put this very clearly indeed. Without these Regulations we have no effective way of dealing with the problem of unqualified teachers.
I come to the second important aspect of this debate. Having said all that, I agree immediately that these regulations now bring out more sharply the position of the certificated teachers who have not registered with the Council. This is a matter which has excited some interest this evening.

Mr. MacArthur: I am glad that the Under-Secretary intends to deal with this question. I thought for one moment that he did not intend to do so. If there has been any misunderstanding about the scope of these Regulations, I think that he will accept that this arises very largely from the explanatory note at the foot of the Regulations and from paragraph 5 of his own circular, which relate these Regulations directly to the continuing employment of certain teachers. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our central concern is with the position of the qualified teacher who is not registered. I am very glad that he is now coming to this question. I do not think that it is irrelevant to these Regulations.

Mr. Millan: I am not complaining about the fact that there has been a certain confusion about the effect of these Regulations, because it is a rather complicated operation. That was why I thought it was useful as a preliminary to discussing these Regulations to remind hon. Members briefly of the background, because the two sets of Regulations must be read together when we are considering the question which I shall now deal with, namely, the question of the certificated teacher who has not yet registered with the Council.
As I have already said, from 1st August under the present Regulations the disabilities of having no longer an entitlement to a permanent appointment apply. They have applied under the previous Regulations from 1st April.
Since we are prohibiting the employment of teachers not registered or conditionally registered in primary schools altogether, and in secondary schools except through the reference panel procedure—this is indispensable to what we are doing with unqualified teachers—we


are by these Regulations, therefore, read together with the previous ones, prohibiting the employment of certificated but unregistered teachers altogether in our schools.
I do not know why hon. Members seem to have taken the attitude that this is some kind of confession or admission. This is absolutely inherent in these regulations. This means, in effect, that when the Regulations go through, local authorities will be under an obligation no longer to employ certificated teachers who are not registered with the Council. Incidentally, even for these teachers the reference panel procedure, which they obviously would not accept, will not be appropriate, because that is not dealing with teachers in this category. So certificated teachers who are not also registered with the Council are no longer eligible 10 be employed in our schools.
Therefore, there will be an obligation—I say this quite openly; this is what it means, this is what the Government intend it to mean, and this is what the local authorities know it to mean—on local authorities to discontinue the employment of these teachers in their schools.
This is the logical consequence of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965. This was a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill and others. We cannot have a General Teaching Council in operation in Scotland unless it insists on 100 per cent. registration. There cannot be two systems operating side by side simultaneously—a system of registration with the Council, on the one hand, and some special privileges still adhering to previously certificated teachers which enable them to carry on without registration with the Council, on the other. This was inherent in the 1965 Act, which had support from all quarters of the House, and every hon. Member who supported the Act must have realised that it was the inevitable consequence.
The second main point I make in this connection—this is directed to the teachers concerned, the small number who are certificated but not registered—is that the remedy for their position lies within their own hands. All they have to do—it is a formality in their case—is to register, and then the various disabilities which we have discussed disappear en-

tirely. Anyone who finds himself in that position has a simple remedy to remove himself from it, namely, to register with the General Teaching Council.
I recognise that there are some teachers who dislike the General Teaching Council as at present constituted. I should have been surprised if a radical change of this nature had gone through with 100 per cent. acceptance. Inevitably, there will be different views about a Council of this sort. We have not heard detailed complaints tonight about the present Council, although there have been incidental references to its composition, and so on. I need not go into those questions now; they are not covered by these Regulations.
All I need say is that criticisms of the Council of the kind one has had, for example, from the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association are very familiar; they have been dealt with in correspondence and other ways many times in the past year or so. No new argument against the Council has been produced for a long time. Time and again, we find we are going over ground which was all debated exhaustively at the time when the Act was passed.
In considering the extent of the opposition, I have to have some regard to the number of teachers registered with the Council. I was asked to give further information to bring up to date the figures which I gave a fortnight ago. There has been a further improvement since then. The latest figures I have, up to today, show that 48,769 teachers have applied for registration and 45,973 of these have completed the process by paying the registration fee of £1. In addition, there are the 1,500 teachers conditionally registered to whom I have already referred.
At the last count in December, 1967, there were no more than 42,000 teachers in service, of whom 3,500 were teaching in further education colleges and colleges of education, and there is no compulsory registration at present in their case. One looks, therefore, at the total number of teachers and compares It with the number of applications and full registrations which we now have. I repeat again that reference to the figures leads to the conclusion that an overwhelming majority of teachers in primary and secondary schools have now registered, and the


number of those who have not registered must be very small.
I was asked whether I could be more precise than that. I am sorry that I cannot give more precise information this evening, since the first responsibility here lies with the local education authorities. It is easy enough to ascertain the total number of teachers who have registered, but it is not quite so easy a job—and it has to be done by individual education authorities at their own level, by analysing their present teaching force—to be sure of the number of certificated teachers who are not registered with the General Teaching Council. But I repeat—there can be no doubt about it—that the number must be very small, and figures of the kind mentioned in the S.S.A. circular of 4th November are completely inaccurate and cannot possibly represent anything like the present position. I think that it was the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) who brought out the interesting point that large numbers of teachers who did not require to be registered have registered with the General Teaching Council. We must keep that in mind when trying to judge the attitude of teachers generally towards registration with the Council.
I have been told that some of the teachers who have registered have done so under duress. But there is a good deal of contrary evidence, particularly when one considers the decisions taken at the E.I.S. annual congress and the annual general meeting of the S.S.T.A. recently to recommend their members to register with the General Teaching Council, that a substantial majority in the teaching profession are in support of the General Teaching Council. I have to take account of the attitude of those organisations as well as that of any minority that may wish to recommend to teachers that they should not register with the Council. But ultimately the question of the continuation of the Council and its success will, and must, depend on the willingness of teachers to support it, register with it and take part in its activities. The teachers should realise this. The Council cannot be sustained except with the encouragement and sustenance of the teachers. It cannot be sustained simply by the Secretary of State or even by official teachers' organisations.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) made a point about the general attitude towards the Council at present. I am aware of the vigorous campaign of opposition to the G.T.C. that has been carried on over the past year. I think that the figures of registration show how ineffective that campaign has been. I certainly take the position that the opposition to the Council would not justify the Government in seeking to alter at this stage the arrangements approved by Parliament little more than three years ago. However, I should make it clear that change is not out of the question for all time. No piece of law is immutable, and every Act of Parliament can be amended by subsequent legislation should Parliament so decide.
Moreover, the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965 includes at paragraph 6 of Schedule I provision for amendment by order of the paragraphs of the Schedule that prescribe the constitution of the General Teaching Council and the arrangements for making appointments to it. Our minds are therefore by no means closed to change, if a clear need for it is established, such need can be established through constitutional means. To seek to proceed otherwise could well lead to disaster for the whole conception of a Teaching Council, which even the opponents of the present Council say that they support in principle.
Therefore, I hope very much that those teachers who are certificated but have not registered with the Council will pay full account to the speeches from both sides of the House tonight, the message of which I believe is that they should register now with the General Teaching Council. That is also the message that I would give them. It is perfectly open to them, as registered teachers, to put forward any views they may have about the composition of the Council and any changes they might wish to see in it. The existing Council completes its four-year period of office early in 1970, and elections of teacher-members of the next Council will be held at the end of 1969. If, as it is claimed, there is a substantial groundswell of discontent in the profestion, this will be reflected in the electoral results. As a consequence, the Council could be moved to press for reform of


its composition. In any event, the Government would give most careful consideration to any expression of teacher opinion as it emerges in the year ahead, particularly from the elections, and would, if need be, take such steps as appeared appropriate to consider adjustments to the functioning of the Council.
The General Teaching Council has been the subject of intense and sometimes bitter controversy in the profession. It is a controversy—here I agree very much with what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said about it—which if continued can in the end do nothing but harm to the teaching profession and the education service in Scotland.
I said a moment ago that there are ways in which discussion and argument about the General Teaching Council can take place within a constitutional framework. I appeal to certificated teachers who have not yet registered to take that into account and register now so that we can approach the future of the General Teaching Council in a constructive spirit.
As has been pointed out by more than one of my hon. Friends this evening, the Council represents the most advanced

state of self-government achieved by the teaching profession in any country in the world. That applies, incidentally, to England and Wales, if I might just make that comment. We have, therefore, had a pioneering operation in Scotland supported by the good will and with the encouragement of all quarters of the House. I think it is evident from the debate that that encouragement and good will towards the General Teaching Council still exist and have been enhanced rather than discouraged by the controversy that we have had about the Council over the last year or so.
I hope very much, therefore, that the House will accept these Regulations. I hope it will do so knowing that they are inevitable and inherent in the General Teaching Council Act, 1965. I hope it will accept them realising the full implications of these Regulations. I also hope that the teachers will recognise that what we are doing here is an essential part of giving this large measure of self-government to the profession, which was the purpose of the 1965 Act.

Mr. MacArthur: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SELBY TOLL BRIDGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: It is very agreeable and helpful for me to be able in a short debate to draw the attention of the House and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to a most serious accident that occurred in the town of Selby, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in my constituency, at the beginning of August.
Damage was caused to the Selby Toll Bridge when a vessel sailing upstream on the Ouse tried to navigate through the gap left when the toll bridge swung open, and struck one of the timber baulks of which the bridge is built and by which it is supported in the river. As a result of the damage the bridge had to be closed to road vehicle traffic for three weeks.
The House will appreciate the seriousness of what this meant both to the bridge and to Selby when I remind it that the toll bridge carries the A 63 trunk road which links not only the town of Selby to the town of Barlby adjacent across the river but also the whole of the West Riding of Yorkshire to the East Riding, and is also the principal trunk link between the West Riding industrial complex—Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Huddersfield and the rest—and the Port of Hull in the East Riding, one of the principal East Coast ports in the British Isles to which much of the West Riding industrial production goes.
I digress here to point out that the Selby Toll Bridge has very few alternatives. If the bridge is closed there remain only the bridge over Wharfe at Tadcaster, the Cawood Bridge, a small light bridge unsuitable for industrial traffic, and the Booth ferry bridge.
The disruption caused by the closure of the Selby Toll Bridge for three weeks was unimaginable. I challenge the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to recall any occasion when a major trunk road of this importance linking one of the largest concentrations of industrial population and industrial production in the British Isles

—namely, the West Riding—to perhaps the third or fourth greatest port in the British Isles, Hull, has been closed to vehicle traffic for three weeks. I believe that it is without precedent in the history of trunk roads since motorised traffic came into being. A major trunk road may have been closed for three hours, or three days, or even a week, but never, I believe, for three weeks.
I need hardly point out the fantastic difficulties this entailed for the local population in the first place. If one lives just to the west of Selby and has a job five miles to the east, this means, normally, crossing the bridge. During the three-week closure, people in such circumstances had to make a detour of about 35 miles to cross an alternative bridge.
Many local firms were affected. They include British Oil and Cake Mills, Rank's Flour Mills, Fletcher's Sauce and the Danish Bacon Corporation. The latter, which is on the west side, has Danish sources for its supplies and carries on much of its trade through Hull, on the east side of the river. For three weeks, all these firms and others were unable to use the bridge for normal commercial purposes. The large Cochrane shipyard is also on the west side and Fletcher's Sauce is on the east.
The financial loss to Selby traders and firms was probably incalculable and I have two testimonials to that effect. The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs wrote that traders' turnover was cut to less than half, perishable goods were delayed or diverted and carried at a loss, and that it could only surmise as to the cost to industry. Obviously, if perishable goods were involved, very substantial financial losses were entailed and this even applied to such goods as machinery in having to make a huge detour of 30 miles or so.
The Selby Chamber of Trade wrote:
The closing of Selby Toll Bridge…has, and still is, causing severe hardship to the local business and trades people in the Town, through a drastic drop in trade. Further…the cost of deliveries, time and wear and tear of vehicles, has soared to incredible degrees.
One of the larger firms in the town normally pays over £7,000 a year in tolls to cross the bridge. At the height of the summer activity, the bridge was closed, entailing additional financial cost


The hon. Gentleman should also visualise what happened to the local services. The Selby Fire Brigade is on the west side of the river but the town of Barlby, which is across the river, is really an integral part of Selby and shares the services not only of the fire brigade but of the ambulances. A hazardous situation arose for Barlby because fire engines could not get across from the west side of the river to attend to fires there. This meant that appliances had to be brought in from Bubwith in the East Riding many miles further away, and there was that additional hazard.
There were pictures of these things in the papers, for it frequently happened that patients had to be carried by stretcher from one ambulance to another across the toll bridge in order to be taken from the West Riding side of the town to York hospital, or possibly to Hull, and sometimes in the other direction, for one of the features of this rural area has been the tendency to concentrate hospital services, so that more travel is involved. For three weeks the disruption on the major trunk route, was unimaginable. I need not dwell on the repercussions further afield. The principal cities of Leeds, Bradford and Wake-field were effectively cut off from the Port of Hull for three whole weeks. That it can happen makes the imagination boggle, and I do not think that anything of the kind has ever happened before.
I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary or his Department can allow the risk of this ever happening again, but the risk is still there. It lies in the fact that Selby Toll Bridge is an antiquated, 18th century, wooden swing bridge which is quite inadequate not only to carry modern vehicular traffic across it, but to deal with the volume of river traffic now seeking to go under it, a growing form of traffic in the East and West Ridings. Perhaps I may draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to a letter which I have received from a correspondent with whom I keep in touch in Selby, someone whom I may describe as a boat spotter. He is a young man, Mr. John Adamson, who is kind enough to furnish me with regular details about the movement of shipping. In January, of this year, he wrote:

I am confident that the volume of shipping using Selby will continue to increase during 1968.
Twenty-seven ships have already visited the town this year, and I was informed today by one wharfinger that a ship carrying 1,100 tons of cargo is due to arrive at his wharf next week. This may well be a record cargo for Selby.
Another firm of wharfingers have informed me that they are to load two shipments of molasses during February and others may follow. These shipments will be the first of their kind in recent years, and the tankers, which are to be chartered from a London firm, will be large vessels by Selby's standards".
The risk of this further damage to the toll bridge at Selby is obviously increasing and that makes the bridge even more inadequate to modern needs.
I must draw attention to the fact that if the Selby Toll Bridge is closed, the alternative routes are themselves extremely vulnerable. It so happens that Cawood bridge, which is one of them, by a stroke of fate sustained an accident in the very same week that the Selby bridge was closed and was therefore also closed. At the same time, the Booth ferry bridge is a somewhat unreliable swing bridge and is frequently closed. If Selby and Cawood and Booth ferry bridges were all closed simultaneously, which is by no means beyond the stretch of imagination, the whole of the West Riding industrial traffic and traffic from over the Pennines to the Port of Hull would be affected. Hon. Members will appreciate the difficulties for this traffic which would have to be routed by the A 64 through Tadcaster, which is already an intolerable bottleneck.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: There was a time during the closing of the Selby Bridge when the Booth ferry bridge was also closed.

Mr. Alison: I can readily understand that.
We now look to the Government to act in the present situation. Action can no longer be delayed. The risks and the damage liable to be caused not just to a town but to the whole of West Riding industry and the Port of Hull are too serious to brook any further delay. First, the Government must assume responsibility for the supervision and the conduct of the Selby Bridge. Secondly, they must make early plans for at least replacing, but preferably duplicating, the bridge across the Ouse at Selby.
Thirdly, the Government must honour their pledge, given by the Minister's Department in 1954, to free the Selby Toll Bridge, with fair compensation to the owners, as a first priority, and as the first toll bridge with a trunk road to be freed.
First, the action with regard to responsibility. It must be the Department's responsibility to take over as soon as damage is caused to the Selby Toll Bridge. It is its trunk road and vehicular traffic is its responsibility. If the bridge is damaged and closed, it must assume responsibility immediately. It must be brought into the question of the scale of expenditure, repairs and the type of contractors involved. It cannot be left to private individuals.
As to the replacing or duplication of the bridge, I must ask the Minister to refresh his memory about a meeting which took place in Selby, on 30th August this year, between representatives of the East and West Riding County Councils, the Selby Urban District Council and the Ministry of Transport. They discussed the possibility of an alternative route, a by-pass of the town of Selby, and reached a unanimous agreement about a new route. I quote from the minutes of that meeting:
The Meeting accordingly resolved that the Minister of Transport be urged to take immediate action to abandon the Southern By-Pass Order"—
that was the Order prevailing up to the time of the meeting—
and to authorise the preparation of the necessary plans for the new route"—
that is the northern route—
with a view to its securing an early place in the road programme.
We want the Minister to comment on this. This was a representative meeting which reached agreement that there must be a new by-pass, the northern route, and the abandonment of the old southern line. The new route was to be up Scott Road, Flaxley Road and eastwards across the river, north of the oil and cake mills. We want a date for that inclusion of this new route, and an associated bridge in a published road programme.
Let me draw the Minister's attention to some comments made by my predecessor, Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner, in

an Adjournment debate on 20th July, 1960. He said:
…the Minister gave me the pledge…that of all the toll bridges in the country the Selby Toll Bridge would be placed at the top of the list of all the bridges to be cleared.
At that point the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) interrupted and said:
Toll bridges on trunk roads."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 688.]
With that qualification the pledge given in February, 1954, was that of all the toll bridges in the country, the Selby Toll Bridge would be placed at the top of the list of such bridges to be cleared. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to reiterate that pledge and associate the Government with it.
Secondly, I want him to confirm that his Department will, at an early date, confirm the new line, the northern by-pass route agreed by representatives of his Department, the East and West Ridings and Selby U.D.C. Thirdly, I want a firm undertaking that there will be a date for the inclusion of a Selby by-pass and a new bridge in a published road programme. This is the least that the town of Selby and the East and West Ridings can reasonably expect.
An antiquated 18th century toll bridge is totally inadequate for the needs of the locality and the country, and it is intolerable that it should be possible for a trunk road to be closed to traffic for as long as three weeks. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us some encouragement and hope for the future in this important local matter.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for allowing me a minute in which to support many of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). I had the opportunity earlier this year of raising this matter. It is of prime importance to the future of the whole of the East Riding, and concerns our connections with the industrial West Riding and the Midlands. We depend upon this most inadequate bridge. It is shocking that a small accident, with a barge ramming one of its piers, can put the bridge


out of commission for such a long time, with such a tremendous increase in costs for people transporting goods. It causes great inconvenience and expense for people concerned in the vital export industry.

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has performed most assiduously his duties as a Member on the issue of the Selby Toll Bridge. On 8th August this year, he sent a telegram to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport when the bridge was damaged, and he was most energetic in ensuring that he was kept in close touch with the progress of repairs. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has also pursued this matter with great vigour and raised the question of communications, of which the Selby Bridge is a part, in the whole of the East Riding of Yorkshire.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash has this evening vividly described the serious difficulties caused for traffic by the unfortunate damage to Selby Bridge which necessitated its closure for three weeks during August. As we know, and as has been described by both hon. Members, crossings over the Ouse are widely spaced and any incident of this kind inevitably involves long detours and throws an additional strain on routes which may already be inadequate to cope even with the traffic that normally uses them.
I do not want the House and people who use Selby Bridge to think that we are turning a blind eye to the problems. The Government have long been aware of the inadequacy of the general communications over the Ouse. We know of the particular difficulties experienced at Selby, even when the bridge there is functioning normally, let alone on the exceptional occasion when it has to be closed to traffic.
Following the publication of Ministry proposals in September, 1965, for a new network of trunk roads in the Humber-side area, some of the local authorities concerned suggested an alternative network. This would have included a new route on an alignment close to the exist-

ing A63, thus providing an effective bypass of Selby and ending the dependence of east-west through traffic on the Selby Bridge.
But there were many other considerations involved in the choice between the two alternative networks. My right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, considered all the factors with the utmost care and heard the views of all the local authorities concerned, including the Selby Urban District Council, before finally she decided to adhere to the proposals originally published by the Ministry.
These proposals, as the hon. Member will know, consist of a new east-west route between Ferrybridge on the Al and Gilberdyke on the A63 west of Hull and a new route running north-eastwards from Doncaster and joining the first at East Cowick. Both these routes, which were included in the first instalment of the trunk road preparation pool announced in February, 1967, will be constructed as motorways and will form extensions to the M62 and Ml8 motorways, respectively. They will include a new high-level crossing of the Ouse at Hook. This bridge will be able to carry all the through traffic between Hull and the west, south-west and south and will to that extent relieve Selby considerably. By increasing the facilities available for communication across the Ouse, it will at the same time ensure that the consequences of any future occurrence similar to that to which the hon. Member has drawn attention would be much less serious than they are in the condition of today.
It is, of course, true that it will be several years before this new network can be completed. This is inevitable because of the enormous amount of survey and design work involved and the need to carry out the appropriate statutory procedures for establishing the route and the side-road modifications and for authorising the acquisition of the necessary land. We are, however, pressing on with this work with all possible speed.
We realise, of course, in the Department, that the construction of the new motorway network will not provide a complete answer to the difficulties caused by Selby Bridge. The hon. Member has been at pains to make this point. This


was indeed expressly recognised by my right hon. Friend when she met objectors to her original proposals for the Humber-side network in June, 1966.
She then said that if she confirmed the network as proposed it would still leave the problem of Selby and in that case she would investigate separately what improvements might be made there. Since the confirmation of the proposed Humberside network, discussions have accordingly been proceeding with the local authorities concerned to explore the possibility of carrying out a scheme to deal with the traffic problems that can be expected to remain when the motorway network has been completed.
The most promising solution appears to be a line to the north of Selby which would involve a new bridge across the Ouse about a mile to the north of the existing toll bridge. Now that this preliminary conclusion has been reached we are considering the inclusion of the bypass in the next list of schemes to be announced for inclusion in the trunk road preparation pool. The hon. Member has pressed hard for a firm date to be set for construction of this road, and I am sorry that I cannot be as explicit as he would like.
If this were the only scheme in the country requiring to be undertaken, life would be easy. I should be able to promise it on the spot to the hon. Member and other hon. Members for the area who have been pressing the matter over the months and years. But we have to establish priorities in drawing up our list of road schemes to be included in the preparation pool. This particular scheme will have to compete for a place with many other urgent schemes throughout the country, and I cannot at this moment anticipate what my right hon. Friend's decision will be and when it will be announced. But I can promise that, provided the scheme does secure a place, we will ensure that it is developed without delay to the point at which it can be considered for firm programming for a specific year. This is not the answer which the hon. Member hoped for, but I assure him—and my hon. Friend—that if we are able to give them brighter news at some time about its inclusion in the preparation

pool, we shall push ahead as fast as we can, and let him and the local authorities know we can go ahead.
Again, we recognise that even if we can some day promise this new bridge, it will not provide an immediate answer to the Selby problem. The hon. Member has stressed how intolerable conditions would be if the existing bridge were out of commission again for any length of time. He has shown that existing traffic still has to be coped with in the normal situation and will encounter a most awkward problem in the event of a further closure. We have looked seriously at one constructive suggestion which hon. Members have been asking for, and this was the idea of a temporary bridge, but there are great problems here, because there would have to be road works on both sides of the bridge, which would mean demolishing a quite large amount of property. Also, the bridge would either need to be a high level bridge or it would need to be a mechanical bridge. It would be extremely expensive, particularly since it would be for only a limited period, till the new by-pass and bridge were built. So this was really not a feasible solution.
There remains the possibility of improving the existing toll bridge. The hon. Member is very rightly concerned lest the bridge is at any future time out of action again, and I understand that the bridge owners are anxious as well that this should not happen again. That is why they are thinking about improvements to the bridge. I must make it very clear at this point that the toll bridge is privately owned, although it connects trunk routes, and the Ministry has no locus at all in the question of the actual bridge. So it is not open to my right hon. Friend the Minister to decide to carry out any improvements. He has no power to do so. This is a matter entirely in the hands of those who own the bridge. But as I have already indicated, it so happens that the bridge proprietors do intend to reconstruct the bridge in a way which would result in substantial improvement. We shall, of course, be pleased to co-operate with the bridge proprietors in any way which may be necessary to ensure proper co-ordination of their proposals with considerations affecting trunk


road traffic, and we hope that their proposals for action will lead to an alleviation of the situation during the period before the longer-term trunk road proposals can come into operation.
I am sorry that, for want of time, I am rather rushed now, but I can say, on the question of the promises made at one period by other Ministers, that I myself have been in great detail into the whole question of tolls and bridges. The position of the Department on the cost of buying out tolls, of compensation, is that, since bridges would need to be replaced in any event, it is better to go ahead and use the money to build new bridges, instead of using the existing bridge and spending perhaps a great deal of money in trying to bring it up to a satisfactory standard.
To sum up, therefore, we have already announced and will implement as quickly as we can an extensive and costly motorway network that will considerably reduce the importance of the route through Selby for through traffic. We are considering the inclusion of a Selby by-pass in the trunk road preparation pool, and some relief is to be hoped for from the reconstruction of the existing bridge, towards which we shall be happy to offer our co-operation. I trust the hon. Member and my hon. Friend will accept this as evidence of our real concern to do all in our power to remedy the deficiencies to which he has so vividly drawn attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.